Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages: The Perception of the 'Other' and the Presence of Mutual Ethnic Stereotypes in Medieval Narrative Sources 2021019188, 9789004417786, 9789004466555, 9004417788

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Notes on Contributors
Maps
Chapter 1 Introduction
Part 1 Zones of Comparison in Medieval Europe: Theory and Examples
Chapter 2 Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade
Chapter 3 Alterity and Genre: Reflections on the Construction of ‘National’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts
Chapter 4 England – No Interest? How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire in the Twelfth Century
Chapter 5 “… rogans eum sibi in auxilium contra superbiam Teutonicorum”: The Imaging of ‘Theutonici’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources between the Ninth and Fourteenth Centuries
Part 2 Polish Views Regarding Germans in the Middle Ages – Hagiographical and Historiographical Sources
Chapter 6 The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire in Polish Historiography until the 13th Century
Chapter 7 The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People in the Eyes of the Polish Elites in the Middle Ages
Chapter 8 Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans in the Middle Ages
Part 3 German Views Regarding Poles in the Middle Ages – Hagiographical, Historiographical and Medieval German Literature Sources
Chapter 9 Poland and the Poles in Early and High Medieval German Historiography
Chapter 10 Poland and the Polish People in Late Medieval German Historiography
Chapter 11 Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in the Empire’s Hagiographic Sources
Chapter 12 Perception of Poland in Peter Suchenwirt’s Heraldic Poems: Reflections on Dependence between Assessments and Genres
Chapter 13 Constructions of Identities and Processes of Othering. Images of Polish Characters, Polishness and Poland and Their Roles in Medieval German Literature
Part 4 Regional Zones of Contact between Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages
Chapter 14 Between Real Experience and Stereotypes: The Silesian People in the Middle Ages with Respect to Their Neighbors (in Historiographic Sources)
Chapter 15 Prussia I: ‘… und das her konng mochte werdin czu Polan, und nicht von cristinlicher libe …’ Historians within the Teutonic Order (Ordensgeschichtsschreibung) in Prussia in the Middle Ages with Regard to Poland
Chapter 16 Prussia II: The Views of Late Medieval Historians in Prussia towards Poland
Chapter 17 Kraków I: ‘Ethnic’ or ‘National’ Conflict in 14th Century Kraków?
Chapter 18 Kraków II: ‘Ad hoc traxit me natura …’. Social Stereotypes in Kraków and the Rebellion of Vogt Albert of 1311–1312
Part 5 German-Polish Stereotypes in Modern Times as a Counterpart to the Medieval Period
Chapter 19 Contemporary Stereotypes within German-Polish Relations: A Linguistic Approach
Part 6 Conclusion
Chapter 20 Final Remarks: Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages: The Perception of the ‘Other’ and the Presence of Mutual Ethnic Stereotypes in Medieval Narrative Sources (10th–15th Centuries)
Selected Bibliography
Index of Geographic Names and Historical (also Fictional) Persons

Citation preview

Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages

Explorations in Medieval Culture General Editor Larissa Tracy (Longwood University) Editorial Board Tina Boyer (Wake Forest University) Emma Campbell (University of Warwick) Kelly DeVries (Loyola University Maryland) David F. Johnson (Florida State University) Asa Simon Mittman (CSU, Chico) Thea Tomaini (USC, Los Angeles) Wendy J. Turner (Augusta University) David Wacks (University of Oregon) Renée Ward (University of Lincoln)

volume 16

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/emc

Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages The Perception of the ‘Other’ and the Presence of Mutual Ethnic Stereotypes in Medieval Narrative Sources Edited by

Andrzej Pleszczyński and Grischa Vercamer

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The research for this conference volume has been supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, under Polonez fellowship reg. no 2016/21/P/HS3/04107 funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 665778. Cover illustration: Statues of Margrave Hermann and his wife Reglindis at Naumburg Cathedral. ©Vereinigte Domstifter zu Merseburg und Naumburg und des Kollegiatstifts Zeitz, Bildarchiv Naumburg. ©Photograph: Matthias Rutkowski. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2021019188

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 2352-0299 ISBN 978-90-04-41778-6 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-46655-5 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

This volume is dedicated to Grischa’s mother, Renate Vercamer, and to the memory of Małgorzata Pleszczyńska, Andrzej’s wife.

∵

Contents Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xii Notes on Contributors xiv Maps xxii 1 Introduction 1 Andrzej Pleszczyński and Grischa Vercamer

PART 1 Zones of Comparison in Medieval Europe: Theory and Examples 2 Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade 17 Kristin Skottki 3 Alterity and Genre: Reflections on the Construction of ‘National’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts 41 Georg Jostkleigrewe 4 England – No Interest? How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire in the Twelfth Century 57 Isabelle Chwalka 5 “… rogans eum sibi in auxilium contra superbiam Teutonicorum”: The Imaging of ‘Theutonici’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources between the Ninth and Fourteenth Centuries 81 David Kalhous

part 2 Polish Views Regarding Germans in the Middle Ages – Hagiographical and Historiographical Sources 6 The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire in Polish Historiography until the 13th Century 101 Andrzej Pleszczyński

viii

Contents

7 The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People in the Eyes of the Polish Elites in the Middle Ages 119 Sławomir Gawlas 8 Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans in the Middle Ages 167 Roman Michałowski

part 3 German Views Regarding Poles in the Middle Ages – Hagiographical, Historiographical and Medieval German Literature Sources 9 Poland and the Poles in Early and High Medieval German Historiography 185 Volker Scior 10 Poland and the Polish People in Late Medieval German Historiography 195 Norbert Kersken 11 Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in the Empire’s Hagiographic Sources 227 Stephan Flemmig 12 Perception of Poland in Peter Suchenwirt’s Heraldic Poems: Reflections on Dependence between Assessments and Genres 243 Paul Martin Langner 13 Constructions of Identities and Processes of Othering. Images of Polish Characters, Polishness and Poland and Their Roles in Medieval German Literature 261 Florian M. Schmid

Contents

part 4 Regional Zones of Contact between Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages 14 Between Real Experience and Stereotypes: The Silesian People in the Middle Ages with Respect to Their Neighbors (in Historiographic Sources) 305 Wojciech Mrozowicz 15 Prussia I: ‘… und das her konng mochte werdin czu Polan, und nicht von cristinlicher libe …’ Historians within the Teutonic Order (Ordensgeschichtsschreibung) in Prussia in the Middle Ages with Regard to Poland 321 Grischa Vercamer 16 Prussia II: The Views of Late Medieval Historians in Prussia towards Poland 347 Adam Szweda 17 Kraków I: ‘Ethnic’ or ‘National’ Conflict in 14th Century Kraków? 357 Marcin Starzyński 18 Kraków II: ‘Ad hoc traxit me natura …’. Social Stereotypes in Kraków and the Rebellion of Vogt Albert of 1311–1312 367 Piotr Okniński

part 5 German-Polish Stereotypes in Modern Times as a Counterpart to the Medieval Period 19 Contemporary Stereotypes within German-Polish Relations: A Linguistic Approach 375 Jarochna Dąbrowska-Burkhardt

ix

x

Contents

part 6 Conclusion 20 Final Remarks: Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages: The Perception of the ‘Other’ and the Presence of Mutual Ethnic Stereotypes in Medieval Narrative Sources (10th–15th Centuries) 395 Thomas Wünsch Selected Bibliography 407 Index of Geographic Names and Historical (also Fictional) Persons 427

Acknowledgments This volume is the outcome of a conference held in the Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuflla PAN in Warszaw during 24.–27. May 2018. The title was: “Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages – Perception of the Other and mutual Stereotypes” (conference report: https://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/ id/tagungsberichte-8077). We would like to thank the former director of the Instytut Historii, Prof. dr hab. Wojciech Kriegseisen, and the director of the German Historical Institute in Warszaw, Prof. Miloš Řezník, for hosting and supporting the conference. We would futhermore thank all contributors of the confernce for their hard work and for their patience during the long editorial process. We are as well grateful to Larrisa Tracy and the board of Explorations in Medieval Culture for their feedback and for the chance to let us publish the volume within the series. Further thanks go to Philip Jacobs (editor from English Exactly), who did a great job by proof-reading the majority of the texts and translating three texts entirely, to Peter Palm for his excellent maps, to Marcella Mulder from Brill for her great support during the last months of editoring, to the anonymous reader of the volume for precise suggestions and very helpful comments, and to Pascal Weber, who assisted us at the very final stage with the index. Thanks to all of you!

Abbreviations APH Acta Poloniae Historica Benessius, “Chronicon” Benessius de Weitmil, “Chronicon” Borgeni, Annales Annales Glogovienses bis zum J. 1493 CDCC Codex diplomaticus civitatis Cracoviensis Chron. Ludovici quarti Chronica Ludovici imperatoris quarti Chronicon Aulae Regiae Petra Žitavského Kronika Dt. Chr. Deutsche Chroniken Ebonis vita Ottonis Ebonis vita sancti Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis Ebran von Wildenberg Des Ritters Hans Ebran von Wildenberg FRB Fontes rerum Bohemicarum/ Prameny dějin českých FSGA Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters. Freiherr vom Stein Gedächtnisausgabe Herbordi dialogus Herbordi dialogus de Vita S. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis Iohannis Victoriensis Liber Iohannis abbas Victoriensis Liber certarum historiarum Johannes von Winterhur, Die Chronik Johanns von Winterthur  Chronica KDMK Kodeks dyplomatyczny miasta Krakowa Korner, Chron. Novella Die Chronica novella des Hermann Korner MGH Monumenta Germanie Historica MPH Monumenta Poloniae Historica NS Nova series Ottokar, Reimchronik Ottokars österreichische Reimchronik Passio Adalberti. Redactio S. Adalberti Pragensis Episcopi et Martyris Vita altera  brevior auctore Brunone Querfurtensi. Redactio brevior Passio Adalberti. Redactio S. Adalberti Pragensis Episcopi et Martyris Vita altera  longior auctore Brunone Querfurtensi. Redactio longior Posilge Johann von Posilge, Chronik des Landes Preussen RBMS Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores Slecht, “Chronicon” Richard Fester, „Die Fortsetzung der Flores Temporum” SRP Scriptores rerum Prussicarum SRS Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum SSrG Scriptores rerum Germanicarum Twinger, Chronik Jakob Twinger von Königshofen, Chronik. Vita Prieflingensis S. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis Vita Prieflingensi Vita quinque fratrum Vita quinque fratrum eremitarum [seu] Vita uel Passio Benedicti et Iohannis sociorumque suorum

Abbreviations Vita sancti Adalberti VK VSMaior VSMinor ZfO

xiii Sancti Adalberti episcopi Pragensis et Martyris Vita prior. A. Redactio Imperialis vel Ottoniana Vita sanctae Kyngae Vita sancti Stanislai Cracoviensis episcopi (Vita maior) Vita s. Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis (Vita minor) Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropaforschung

Notes on Contributors Isabelle Chwalka (PhD, Mainz/Germany) finished her PhD at the Department of Medieval History at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. Her doctoral work was focused on analysing comparatively the view of Anglo-Norman / Angevinian historians towards the Holy Roman Empire and the view of German authors towards 12th century England. She examines the influence of political, social and cultural constellations on the historians and their view about “others” and the interdependency between conceptions and perceptions. At present she works for the Department of University Development at the University of Applied Sciences Koblenz. Jarochna Dąbrowska-Burkhardt (PhD and habilitation in Zielona Góra/Poland) is a professor of German Linguistics at the University of Zielona Góra. She studies with a PhD-scholarship at the Institut für deutsche Sprache (Mannheim) and received her PhD in German Linguistics and Applied Linguistics from the University of Mannheim in the research field of national stereotypes (Stereotype und ihr sprachlicher Ausdruck im Polenbild der deutschen Presse. Eine textlinguistische Untersuchung, Tübingen 1999). In 2014 she concluded her Habilitation in German Linguistics and Philology at the University of Poznań (Die gesamteuropäischen Verfassungsprojekte im transnationalen Diskurs. Eine kontrastive linguistische Analyse der deutschen und polnischen Berichterstattung, Zielona Góra 2013). Her main research areas are discourse analysis, polito-linguistics, intercultural communication, research on stereotypes, culture-related linguistics, media linguistics and historical sociolinguistics, especially analysis of early modern chronicles. In 2004 she published a bilingual edition on the Town Chronicle of Grünberg in Niederschlesien (Dawna Zielona Góra. Kronika 1623–1795. Das alte Grünberg. Chronik 1623–1795, Zielona Góra 2004). Her research interests include the relationship between individual and collective language use and the process of meaning construction in different media during various time periods. Stephan Flemmig (PhD and habilitation in Leipzig and Jena/Germany) studied medieval and modern history, art history, and biology in Leipzig and Krakow. This was followed by a dissertation dealing with the medieval veneration of saints and then a Habilitation addressing the political history of entanglements in late medieval East Central Europe. In conjunction with these, there were longer research stays in Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and Italy. Stephan

Notes on Contributors

xv

Flemmig is presently academic counsellor (Akademischer Rat) at the Friedrich Schiller University in Jena. His most important publications are: Hagiography and Cultural Transfer: Bridget of Sweden and Hedwig of Poland (Hagiographie und Kulturtransfer. Birgitta von Schweden und Hedwig von Polen (2011); The Mendicant Orders during the High Middle Ages in Bohemia and Moravia (Die Bettelorden im hochmittelalterlichen Böhmen und Mähren) (expected 2018); Between the Empire and East Central Europe: the Relationships among the Jagiellonians, Wettins, and the Teutonic Order (1386–1526) (Zwischen dem Reich und Ostmitteleuropa. Die Beziehungen von Jagiellonen, Wettinern und Deutschem Orden (1386–1526). Sławomir Gawlas (PhD and habilitation in Warsaw/Poland) is professor of medieval history at the Institute of History at the University of Warsaw, Poland. He specializes in the history of Poland in the late Middle Ages, focusing his attention on the problems of political and economic systems; he is also interested in the question of social awareness in this period in East Central Europe. His most important publications include, among others: O kształt zjednoczonego Królestwa: niemieckie władztwo terytorialne a geneza społeczno-ustrojowej odrębności Polski [For the Shape of a United Kingdom: German territorial authority and the origin of Poland’s distinctiveness in social and political system], Warszawa 2000; “Die Probleme des Lehnswesens und Feudalismus aus polnischer Sicht” in: Das europäische Mittelalter im Spannungsfeld des Vergleichs. Zwanzig internationale Beiträge zu Praxis, Problemen und Perspektiven der historischen Komparatistik, ed. Michael Borgolte, Ralf Lusiardi (Europa im Mittelalter, Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur historischen Komparatistik, vol. 1), Berlin 2001, pp. 97–123; “Der hl. Adalbert als Landespatron und die frühe Nationenbildung bei den Polen”, in: Polen und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahren. Die Berliner Tagung über den “Akt von Gnesen”, ed. Benjamin Scheller (Europa im Mittelalter, Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur historischen Komparatistik, vol. 5), Berlin 2002, pp. 193–233; Möglichkeiten und Methoden herrschaftlicher Politik im östlichen Europa im 14. Jahrhundert, in: Die “Blüte” der Staaten des östlichen Europa im 14. Jahrhundert, ed. Marc Löwener, (Quellen und Studien des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Warschau, vol. 14), Wiesbaden 2004, s. 257–284. Georg Jostkleigrewe (PhD, Erlangen/Germany; habilitation, Münster/Germany) is a full professor in medieval studies at the University of Halle (Saale)/Germany. His research fields cover the vernacular and Latin historiography of the High and Late Middle Ages and the role of symbolic communication in late medieval diplomatic contacts and court societies. He specialises in the study of French medieval history;

xvi

Notes on Contributors

his specific focus is on the structures and interactional mechanisms within the French “political society” during the reigns of the last Capetians and the first Valois kings. During his time in Münster, he worked as a researcher in the Collaborative Research Center/SFB 1150 “Cultures of Decision-Making”, investigating the development of scholastic notions of contingency and their embedding in internal discussions and conflicts at the University of Paris. His PhD was on the topic: Das Bild des Anderen. Entstehung und Wirkung deutschfranzösischer Fremdbilder in der volkssprachlichen Literatur und Historiographie des 12. bis 14. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 2008) (The picture of the “Other”. Creation and effect of German-French Mutual Perception in the Vernacular Literature and Historiography of the 12th–14th centuries). In Halle, he focusses on the interdependencies between feud and other forms of conflict management on the one hand, and State formation on the other. David Kalhous (PhD., Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, Brno, CZ) is currently Senior Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Institut für Mittelalterforschung ÖAW, Wien and associate professor in the Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, Brno. His publications include Anatomy of a Duchy. The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia (Brill, 2012), “Legenda Christiani and modern historiography” (Brill, 2015), Bohemi. Zu den Identitätsbildungsprozessen in Böhmen der Přemyslidenzeit (bis 1200) (Verlag der ÖAW, forthcoming) and over 50 scholarly papers and articles. His interests concern early and high medieval history (mainly in Central Europe) with the focus on the beginnings of the organized polities and on identities, both in comparative scale. In his research, he combines the approaches of different disciplines (textual analysis, archaeology, codicology and palaeography) and cooperates especially with the Vienna-school (H. Wolfram, W. Pohl, H. Reimitz). Norbert Kersken (PhD, Münster/Germany) is a staff member of the Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe, Marburg. He specializes in the medieval history of East Central Europe and on the history of historiography in the Middle Ages. He is the author of various publications primarily on the topic of historiography in the Middle Ages. He wrote his PhD on “Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der ‘nationes’. Nationalgeschichtliche Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter” (Köln 1995) (Historiography in Europe of the ‘nations’). He has published more than 100 scholarly articles in the fields of historiography and foreign policy in the Middle Ages (cp. http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_de/ suche.php?qs=Norbert+Kersken).

Notes on Contributors

xvii

Paul Martin Langner (PhD, Technical University in Berlin/Germany) is a professor of German Studies at the University of Pedagogy in Krakow. He studied Germanistik and Philosophy at the Technical University of Berlin and worked 15 years as the Manager of Cultural Affairs in Schleswig-Holstein, Berlin and Potsdam. His main topics are area-studies in the Middle Ages: the concept of Tradition, performativity in religious drama, in law and court in the Middle Ages, the theory of images and Friedrich Hebbel dramas and theatre of the 19th Century. His last publication: Performative Elemente in den städtischen Gewohnheitsrechten (Performative Elements in Municipal Rights), Die mittelniederdeutsche Apokalypse unter der Perspektive zisterziensischer Frömmigkeit. (The middle-low German Apocalypse from the Perspective of Cistercians Piety). Recently (June 2018) his book appeared on the perception of Polish knights in German poems of the High Middle Ages. Roman Michałowski (PhD and habilitation, University of Warsaw/Poland) is a professor of Medieval History at that university. He has published monographs and many articles on the Middle Ages including Princeps fundator (Arx Regia, 1993) and The Gniezno Summit (Brill, 2016) and is editor in chief of the important historical journal ‘Kwartalnik Historyczny’. Wojciech Mrozowicz (PhD and habilitation, University of Wrocław/Poland) is a professor of Medieval History at the Institute of History of the University of Wrocław (Department of the History of Poland and Universal History up to the End of the 15th century). His scientific areas of research are concentrated around themes in the history of Silesia and Poland, as well as their relations with neighbouring countries. He also conducts research in the area of historiography (especially Silesian), hagiography (especially related to St. Hedwig), monasticism (especially involving the Augustinian Canons Regular) and codicology. He also has published source texts from the Middle Ages and the Modern Age in both Latin and German (among others the Chronicle of the Monastery of Augustinian Canons in Kłodzko and the Silesian Annals). He is the author or editor of over 350 texts related to this field. He collaborates with the Faculty of Manuscripts at the University Library of Wrocław, where he participates in the work of creating a catalogue of medieval manuscripts.

xviii

Notes on Contributors

Piotr Okniński (PhD, The Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw/Poland) is an associate professor of History. He specializes in comparative urban history of the Late Middle Ages. His PhD dissertation examines the establishment of municipal institutions in the urban community of Kraków in the 13th century. He has also written several papers concerning different institutional, social, and spatial aspects of the urban development in the Polish lands. He is currently working on a project focused on the communal self-identity of medieval Central European cities and the role of their governments in shaping official urban memory discourses. Andrzej Pleszczyński (PhD and habilitation in UMCS Lublin/Poland), Co-Editor of this volume. He is Professor of Medieval European History at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland. His research interests include: myths, narratives, stereotypes, topoi especially in the area of the formation of opinions about peoples/ nations in the Middle Ages in the sweep of Polish-Czech-German contacts in the Middle Ages. He is also interested in studying the influence of old conceptual clichés on the colloquial and scientific thinking about the past. His academic achievements comprise among other writings the monographs: The Birth of a Stereotype. Polish Rulers and their Country in German Writings c. 1000 A.D. (Brill, 2011); Vyšehrad – rezidence českých panovníků. Studie o rezidenci panovníka raného středověku na příkladu českého Vyšehradu (Praha: Set out, 2002); Przekazy niemieckie o Polsce i jej mieszkańcach w okresie panowania Piastów [German accounts about Poland and its inhabitants during the Piasts rule] (Lublin: UMCS, 2016), and a collection of studies: Imagined Communities. Constructing Collective Identities in Medieval Europe (Brill, 2018). Florian M. Schmid (PhD, German Linguistics and Literature, University of Hamburg) is currently a research assistant with teaching duties at the University of Greifswald, focusing on German Language and Literature of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. He did his PhD on a study of the Nibelungenlied (‘Wiederund Weitererzählen. Strategien der Retextualisierung in der Fassung *C des ‚Nibelungenlieds‘ und der ‚Klage’). His publications include works on early prints, strategies of re-textualisation in heroic epics and negotiation and demonstration of power in German and Scandinavian literature. He has published articles as well on the construction of identity and the narration of space in heroic epics, performance and performativity in courtly epics, processes of scandalisation in regard to chivalric romances, perceptual and

Notes on Contributors

xix

interpretive patterns of the sea in verse epics, comedy in the Fastnachtspiel, text-image-relations in late medieval and early modern prose romances, constructions of knowledge and genealogy in medieval chronicles. He is currently working on projects dealing with literature as sources of information in early modern chronicles and the construction of internal worlds of literary characters in early modern prose romances. Volker Scior (PhD and habilitation Hamburg university) studied law, history and political sciences in Hamburg. After two scholarships from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and two interim professorships in Hamburg and Eichstätt, he is now Assistant Professor of Medieval History at the Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany. He wrote his PhD thesis on the perception of otherness and strangeness in high-medieval Northern Europe (Das Eigene und das Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremen, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnold von Lübeck, Berlin 2002) and a second book on messengers as a means of communication in the Early Middle Ages (Boten im frühen Mittelalter. Studie zur zeitgenössischen Praxis von Kommunikation und Mobilität). His Habilitation text is in the process of being published. He wrote several articles on mobility in Europe and the Mediterranean, on letters and messengers between late Antiquity and the Late Middle Ages, and on the perception of foreigners and strangers in the Early and High Middle Ages. Kristin Skottki (PhD at the university of Rostock/Germany) is a Juniorprofessor of Medieval History at Bayreuth University. Her PhD thesis was published in 2015 with Waxmann under the title Christen, Muslime und der Erste Kreuzzug. Die Macht der Beschreibung in der mittelalterlichen und modernen Historiographie. She co-edited Sprechen, Schreiben, Handeln. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Performativität mittelalterlicher Texte together with Annika Bostelmann, Doreen Brandt and Hellmut Braun (Waxmann 2017). She has published a number of articles on crusade historiography and theology, as well as on reflections about the role of modern academic historiography and medievalism. She is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Transcultural Medieval Studies (De Gruyter). Her main research object is a host desecration case in a northern German town called Sternberg in 1492. But she is currently also involved in different projects addressing the challenges of Crusader Medievalism in recent political and violent contexts.

xx

Notes on Contributors

Marcin Starzyński (PhD and habilitation in Krakow/Poland) is a historian-medievalist and works as habilitated doctor in the Institute of History at the Jagiellonian University in the Department of Auxiliary Sciences of History. His scientific interests include the socio-economic history of the Polish Middle Ages: the history of towns and townsmen, and the history of the Church in medieval Poland – in particular the history of religious orders. He had published books, e.g., Das mittelalterliche Krakau. Der Stadtrat im Herrschaftsgefüge der polnischen Metropole (Köln-Wien-Weimar 2015) and Collegium minus (Kraków 2015, co-author Dariusz Niemiec) and several articles: Le cult de Saint Bernardin de Sienne en Pologne médiévale dans l’optique du Liber miraculorum sancti Bernardini de Conrad de Freystadt (Paris 2014, co-author: Anna Zajchowska), Last Tribute to the King. The Funeral Ceremony of the Polish King Kazimierz the Jagiellon (1492) in the Light of an Unknown Description (Turnhout 2014), Geschichte des Wappens der Cistercienserabte in Mogiła (Heiligenkreuz 2012), Il re, il vescovo ed il predicatore. Giovanni da Capestrano a Cracovia 1453–1454 (Roma 2011) and others. Adam Szweda (PhD and habilitation in Toruń/Poland) is a professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń/Poland. He did his PhD on the topic of “Families of the Grzymała coat of arms in Greater Poland in the Middle Ages” (1998) and his Habilitation in the field of the history of the Teutonic Order with a monograph titled “Organization and Technique of Polish Diplomacy in Relations with the Teutonic Order in Prussia in the years 1386–1454.” The main fields of his interest are diplomacy in the Late Middle Ages, relations between Poland-Lithuania and the Teutonic Order in the 14–16th centuries and Prussian chronicles. He is the author or co-author of over 100 publications (books, articles and source editions). Many of them can be found at: https://torun-pl.academia.edu/ AdamSzweda Grischa Vercamer Co-Editor of this volume. He is currently working as professor for regional studies (with special focus on the Medieval periods) in Chemnitz/Germany. He studied medieval and modern history, German literature and the archaeology of Central Europe in Berlin and Edinburgh from 1995 to 2002. He did his PhD at the Freie Universität in Berlin on a topic taken from the late medieval history of the Teutonic Order in Prussia (until 2007). From 2008 until 2014 he worked as a research assistant in Medieval History at the German Historical Institute in Warsaw and as a lecturer in Medieval History

Notes on Contributors

xxi

at the Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt/Oder. In 2016 he submitted his Habilitation dealing with the perception of rulers and power among histo­ rians in the High Middle Ages in Frankfurt/Oder. From 2017 until 2019 he was working as principle investigator in an EU-project at the Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History of the Academy of Science in Warsaw/Poland on the position of a Professor of Medieval History. The project there addressed the perceptions of the “Other” in German and Polish relations as viewed by chroniclers in the medieval period (which is similar to the title of the present volume). From 2018 until 2020 he worked as a replacement professor for Medieval History in Passau/Germany. His most important publications include: Administrative, Social and Settlement History of the Commandry of Königsberg (Kaliningrad) in Prussia from the 13th–16th centuries. [Siedlungs-, Verwaltungs- und Sozialgeschichte der Komturei Königsberg im Deutschordensland Preußen (13.–16. Jahrhundert), Marburg 2010 (672 pp., PhD)]; Perceptions of the Good and Bad Use of Power by Rulers in England, Poland and the Holy Roman Empire as Reflected in the Historiography of the 12th and 13th centuries (Hochmittelalterliche Herr­ schaftspraxis im Spiegel der Geschichtsschreibung. Vorstellungen von »guter« und »schlechter« Herrschaft in England, Polen und dem Reich im 12./13. Jahrhundert (Quellen und Studien des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Warschau, Bd. 37), Wiesbaden 2020. (Habilitation, 792 pp.)]. In addition, he has edited seven conference volumes and written about 30 scholarly articles (cf. http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_de/suche. php?qs=Grischa+Vercamer) dealing with his research interests: German history, Polish history and the general history of Central Europe in the Middle Ages, the medieval history of military orders (esp. the Teutonic Order), the history of rule and power, the perception of the “Own” and the “Other” (Vorstellungsgeschichte), and lastly the history of chronicles and historiography in the Middle Ages. Thomas Wünsch (PhD in Regensburg/Germany, habilitation in Konstanz/Germany) is a professor of East Central Europe history at the university of Passau/Germany. He focuses in his research on the history and the culture of Poland, Bohemia, the Ukraine and Russia in Medieval and Modern periods. He has a wide variety of interests. His PhD has the title: “Spiritalis intellegentia. Zur allegorischen Bibelinterpretation des Petrus Damiani” (1991) and his Habilitation: “Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien” (Paderborn 1998).

Maps KINGDOM OF DENMARK

Holy Roman Empire and Poland, 10th/11th century

Schleswig DANISH MARCH

Hedeby Oldenburg

North Sea

Demmin

Mecklenburg Hamburg

FRISIA

Groningen

Groß Raden Elb

Lüneburg

Bremen

e

Verden Havelberg

DUCHY OF SAXONY Osnabrück Utrecht

Minden

HOLLAND

Münster Duisburg

Antwerp

Tournai

Liège

Valenciennes Cambrai

Zerbst

Quedlinburg

Corvey

Jüterbog

Merseburg Memleben Naumburg Fritzlar Erfurt Zeitz Hersfeld THURINGIA Fulda

ine

DUCHY OF LOW LORRAINE

Dortmund

Rh

Ghent

Magdeburg Goslar

Gandersheim Paderborn

Bruges

Brandenburg

Hildesheim

Cologne

Aachen

Koblenz DUCHY OF Frankfurt F R A N C O N I A Mainz Ingelheim Bamberg Würzburg Worms

Bouillon

Trier Arlon Soissons DUCHY OF Reims U P P E R L O R R A I N E Speyer Verdun Metz Châlons

NORDGAU

Rothenburg

KINGDOM OF GERMANY

Seine

Hirsau

Toul Rhine

Troyes Clairvaux

KINGDOM OF FRANCE Dijon

Eichstätt

Strassburg Ulm

Da

DUCHY O F S WA B I A

Augsburg

Freising

Lechfeld (955)

Salzburg

Konstanz Basel

Besançon

Zürich

DUCHY OF B AVA R I A

St. Gallen

Autun Pontarlier Cluny

Regensburg

e nub

Brenner

Brixen

Lausanne

Mâcon

St. Gotthard

Geneva

Rhon

Loire

Lyon

KINGDOM OF B U R G U N DY Vienne

L O M B A R DY Grenoble

map 1

Trento

Gr. St. Bernhard

Milan

Mt. Cenis

Turin

Brescia

Pavia

M A R G R AV I AT E O F V E RO N A

Po Mantua Valence The Holy Roman Empire and Poland, 10th/11th century.

Map designed and © Peter Palm, Berlin/Germany Parma

Verona

Venice

xxiii

Maps

Baltic Sea

Arkona

Słupsk

Kołobrzeg

P R U S S I A N S

Danzig/ ´ Gdansk

Truso Ne

Białogard

Wolin

ma

P O M E R A N I A

Szczecin

Wizna Ostrołeka ˛

Culm/ Chełmno

Nakło

M A Z O V I A

Cedynia Santok Lebus/ Lubusz

Lekno

˛ Miedzyrzecz

Kruszwica

Gniezno

Poznan´

n

Narew

K I E VA N RU S ’

Bug

Drohiczyn

Płock

Brest

Vis

Giecz C I V I T A S S C H I N E S G H E ˛ Łeczyca tul a

Kalisz Sieradz Głogów Liegnitz/ Legnica

Bautzen

Meissen

er

Breslau/ Wrocław

Sandomierz Opole

Niemcza

´ Wislica

S I L E S I A

RED RUTHENIA

e

Elb

ˇˇ Litomerice

Lublin

POLAND

Od

ˇ Melnik Mladá Boleslav Levy´ Stará Hradec Králové Hradec Boleslav Prague Chrudim ˇ Kourim Plzno Olomouc DUCHY

Racibórz

´ Przemysl Sanok

Brno

ˇ Trencín

Znojmo MARGRAVIATE OF AUSTRIA

Linz

Biecz

L A N D O F C R A K O W Stary Sacz ˛

DUCHY OF M O R AV I A

OF BOHEMIA

Passau

Crakow

Vienna

Uzhhorod

Nitra

Pressburg

Eger

Raab

DUCHY OF C ARINTHIA

Tis

Danub

za

Esztergom Visegrád e Buda

K I N G D O M O F H U N G A RY Friesach Villach Kranj Aquileia

Ljubljana Sava

CRANIOLA Trieste MARCH MARCH OF ISTRIA Rijeka

Kingdom of Germany

Dra

va

Zagreb 0

50

Marchs of the Empire 100 km

Duchy of Poland at the beginning of Reign of Mieszko I. (960) Sirmium

Belgrad

xxiv

map 2

Maps

The Holy Roman Empire and Poland around 1400. Map designed and © Peter Palm, Berlin/Germany

Maps

xxv

Kowno Wilno

Königsberg/Kaliningrad

Minsk

Wilna

T E U TO N I C O R D E R Danzig/Gdansk ´ Elbing/Elblag ˛ Marienburg/ Malbork Marienwerder/ Kwidzyn

Grodna

Wizna . Łomza

Thorn/ Torun´

GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA

Bielsk

Pinsk Gniezno

Kruszwica

Płock

Brest Warsaw

Sochaczew

Poznan´

KINGDOM OF POLAND Kalisz

Radom

Lublin

Lutsk

Rivne

.

Wielun Breslau/ Neu- Wrocław markt/ ´ Brzeg Opole Sroda Bytom Kłodzko Neisse/Nysa ˛ Lubiaz

SILESIAN P R I N C I PA L I T I E S Opava Olomouc

˛ Checiny

Sandomierz

Crakow

Tarnów

Bełz/Belz

Krzemieniec/ Kremenets Lwów/Lviv Trembowla/ Terebovia

Przemysl ´

Halicz/Halych

Cieszyn/ Tešín ˇ

M A R G R AV I AT E O F M O R AV I A Brno

Pressburg Vienna

Visegrád Esztergom

Buda

KINGDOM OF HUNGARY Border of the Holy Roman Empire Border of Poland around 1370

Pécs

Grand Duchy of Lithuania around 1398

Zagreb

Kingdom of Hungary 0

50

100 km

chapter 1

Introduction Andrzej Pleszczyński and Grischa Vercamer The topic of this volume1 – extending beyond just the context of Germany/ Poland – is currently trending, since in a globalized world, where all information and all consumer goods supposedly are just around the corner and are available at any time, many people seem to feel a longing for orientation and identity. It is therefore no coincidence that on the best seller list of non-fiction books (Sachbücher) of the leading German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, at the time of the conference in May 20182 we found many books dealing with foreignand self-perception (‘Othering’), such as Thea Dorn’s “Deutsch, nicht dumpf” (German, Not Dull) or Isolde Charim’s “Ich und die Anderen.” (Me and the Others).3 Moreover, one may surely assume that the problem is clearly wider in scope and also occurs elsewhere in Europe and within the global framework. People want and need an identity narrower than expansively belonging to the world, or even just to the European Union; they seek local and regional identities even when those are encompassed within supranational unions. We are witnessing a renaissance of national ideas.4 This is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that strengthening your own national identity is combined with a further understanding and respect for other nations, ethnic groups, and individuals. Taking this in account, there is a lot to improve upon and learn from each other in Europe and elsewhere. While the ‘western peninsula’ of Asia may not be the worst example, all the same, the continent (Europe) is 1 The research for this introduction has been supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, under Polonez fellowship reg. no 2016/21/P/HS3/04107 funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 665778. 2 This volume is the outcome of a conference held in the Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuflla PAN in Warszaw from the 24.–27. May 2018. The title was: “Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages – Perception of the Other and mutual Stereotypes” (conference report: https://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-8077). 3 https://www.zeit.de/2018/18/sachbuecher-bestenliste-mai (27.9.2018). 4 Which sometimes leads to nationalism – see e.g.: Greg Johnson, Towards A New Nationalism (San Francisco 2019); or the collection of studies: Nationalist Myths and Modern Media. Contested Identities in the Age of Globalization, ed. Jan H. Brinks, Stella Rock, and Edward Timms, (London-New York, 2006).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_002

2

Pleszczyński and Vercamer

divided by cultural and political barriers and behind them stand in most of the cases a basic misunderstanding,5 sometimes even intolerance and racism. One of these European bi-national barriers persisting even into the present still seems to be the Polish-German one. Despite generally friendly actual relations between both countries, present animosities arising from historical experiences and, in many cases prejudices, can still be recognized. The memory of the tragic ‘fresh history’ in the 19th/20th centuries plays a major part within these bilateral lieux de mémoire. In the current situation of open-mindedness and broad Polish-German academic cooperation, it seems well worth the effort to rationally analyze and evaluate the mutual stereotypical perceptions in the more distant past, which we offer here for the Middle Ages, using examples from its written memories (chronicles, hagiographies) which are examined in the majority of the contributions to this volume. This is in view of the fact that it is specifically history which has created and continues to create stereotypes and prejudices that are influentially present even today.6 Neither Germans nor Poles were unique in creating stereotypes that slandered the neighbor. Therefore, the volume comprises, besides the mentioned contributions about German-Polish perceptions, other articles as well on various mutual perceptions within Europe, especially those regarding Germans and the Holy Roman Empire from outside in the Middle Ages. 5 Malcolm Chapman, Jeremy Clegg, and Hanna Gajewska-De Mattos, “Poles and Germans: An international Business Relationship,” Human Relations 57 (8), 2004, 983–1015; Jarochna Dąbrowska-Burhardt, “O języku niemieckim w Polsce. Stereotypy i wyobrażenia na przestrzeni wieków [About German in Poland. Stereotypes and ideas over the centuries],” Lingwistyka stosowana 23,3 (2017): 15–25. 6 Agnieszka Łada, Barometr Polska-Niemcy 2013. Wizerunek Niemiec i Niemców w polskim społeczeństwie po dziesięciu latach wspólnego członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej [Poland-Germany Barometer 2013. The image of Germany and Germans in Polish society after ten years of joint membership in the European Union] (Warszawa, 2014); Jarochna Dąbrowska, Stereotype und ihr sprachlicher Ausdruck im Polenbild der deutschen Presse: eine textlinguistische Untersuchung, Studien zur deutschen Sprache 17 (Tübingen, 1999). See also on a broader level: Richard F.M. Byrn, “National stereotypes reflected in German literature,” in Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. Simon N. Forde / Leslie Peter Johnson / Alan V. Murray (Leeds, 1995), 137–153; David Lowenthal, “Identity, Heritage and History,” in Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity, ed. John R. Gillis, Princeton, 1996, 41–57; Hans N. Hahn and Eva Hahn, “Nationale Stereotypen. Plädoyer für eine historische Stereotypenforschung,” in Stereotyp, Identität und Geschichte. Die Funktion von Stereotypen in gesellschaftlichen Diskursen, ed. Hans H. Hahn (Frankfurt/M. 2002), 17–56; Ethnic Images and Stereotypes – where is the border line? (Russian-Baltic cross-cultural relations); proceedings of the III International Scientific Conference on Political and Cultural Relations Between Russia and the States of the Baltic Region (Narva, October 20–22, 2006), ed. Jelena Nömm (Narva, 2007); different contributions in: National stereotypes: correct images and distorted images, ed. Bianca Valota (Alessandria, 2007).

Introduction

3

Imagination is what usually stands at the start of stereotypical thinking, and it greatly simplifies and distorts reality. In 2011, a large exhibition took place in the well-known Martin Gropius Museum in Berlin/Germany and in the Royal Palace in Warsaw/Poland. The name was “Next door. Poland – Germany. 1000 years of Art and History” (German: Tür an Tür. Polen – Deutschland. 1000 Jahre Kunst und Geschichte; Polish: Obok. Polska – Niemcy. 1000 Lat Historii w Sztuce). The flyer for the exhibition proposed that the Germans and the Poles should deepen their knowledge of the others’ country and develop cultural exchanges in order not only to understand the other side better – but also their own selves. Obviously, the intention was to propose digging more deeply into the mutual history of both countries, reaching back further than just the last two centuries. For example, in the preface to the catalogue, Bernd Neumann (then the German Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media) wrote: In the middle of Poland‘s EU Council Presidency, the exhibition shows that the history of German-Polish relations cannot be narrowed to the dark chapter of the crimes of Nazi Germany. For 1000 years, the neighborhood of the two countries was marked by cultural diversity, vivid exchange, and fruitful cooperation.7 Further on in the foreword, somewhat for the “other side”, the famous politician and historian Władysław Bartoszewski, in his function as chairman of the scientific advisory board of the exhibition, wrote: Living next door is the story of many generations. This time [meaning a thousand years] is long enough to realize that we understand our history not only as a series of conflicts, but above all as the history of a community. This community left its mark on our intellectual and cultural heritage. These traces – as Karl Dedecius once aptly stated – are deep and enduring, but forgotten and hidden.8 7 Tür an Tür. Polen – Deutschland: 1000 Jahre Kunst und Geschichte, ed. Tomasz Torbus and Malgorzata Omilanowska (Köln, 2011), 7 [Translation by GV]. Original: „Mitten in der EU-Ratspräsidentschaft Polens zeigt die Ausstellung, dass sich die Geschichte der deutsch-polnischen Beziehungen nicht auf das dunkle Kapitel der Verbrechen des nationalsozialistischen Deutschlands verengen lässt. 1000 Jahre lang war die Nachbarschaft der beiden Länder geprägt von kultureller Vielfalt, lebendigem Austausch und fruchtbarer Zusammenarbeit.“ 8 Ibid., 9–10 [Translation: GV]. Original: „[…] Tür an Tür, leben, ist die Geschichte vieler Generationen. Diese Zeit [tousand years] ist lang genug, um zu begreifen, dass wir unsere

4

Pleszczyński and Vercamer

Even the small selection of different voices (Blütenlese) presented here will better sensitizes us to an important fact: The limiting of the history of relations for two large, coexisting cultures to merely their recent history narrows the view unnecessarily to just the very painful and dreadful experiences of the twentieth century. It was this insight that gave rise to the idea for the planned volume, with most of the texts dealing with stereotypes and mutual perceptions of the ‘other’ by German and Polish historiographers throughout the Middle Ages (i.e. in this case from the 10th up to the 15th centuries) accompanied by a couple of other contributions reflecting on the same topic, but for other European regions. There is a serious gap in and desideratum for this research field about the medieval period because these types of studies are very rare.9 Admittedly, we are not saying that there are already numerous studies devoted to this topic as it relates to Modernity, but at minimum there are plenty of shorter studies and also extensive scholarly dissertations on the stereotypes and mutual perception of Poles and Germans for the modern period.10 However, there is Historie nicht ausschließlich als eine Abfolge von Konflikten verstehen, sondern vor allem als die Geschichte einer Gemeinschaft. Diese Gemeinschaft hinterließ Spuren in unserem geistigen und kulturellen Erbe. Spuren, die – wie Karl Dedecius einst treffend konstatierte – tief und beständig, aber vergessen und zugeschüttet sind.“ 9 There are some older compendia on mutual relations in the Middle Ages: Niemcy – Polska w średniowieczu: materiały z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Inst. Historii UAM w dniach 14–16 XI 1983 roku [Germany – Poland in the Middle Ages: materials from a conference organized by the Institut of History of Adam Mickiewicz University, 14–16.11.1983], ed. Jerzy Strzelczyk (Poznań, 1986) – there are several interesting articles, but only the article of Henryk Samsonowicz really reflects on the perception of the Germans towards Poland. Das Reich und Polen: Parallelen, Interaktionen und Formen der Akkulturation im hohen und späten Mittelalter, ed. Thomas Wünsch (Ostfildern, 2003) – again: only 4 articles really reflect on the common history: Adam Labuda, Tomasz Jurek, Mieczysław Markowiec, Thomas Wünsch. The other 12 articles may be regarded as translation/ explanation of already established Polish research results for German readers. Jerzy Strzelczyk, ”Deutsch-polnische Schicksalgemeinschaft in gegenseitigen Meinungen im Mittelalter,” in Mittelalter – eines oder viele?/ Średniowiecze – jedno czy wiele?, ed. Sławomir Moździoch, Wojciech Mrozowicz, and Stanisław Rosik (Wrocław, 2010), 111–126 – this text is quite general and treats the problem in a very sketchy manner. Two books of Andrzej Pleszczyński, The Birth of a Stereotype. Polish Rulers and their Country in German Writings c. 1000 A.D. (Boston-Leiden, 2011); and: Przekazy niemieckie o Polsce i jej mieszkańcach w okresie panowania Piastów [German accounts of Poland and tis inhabitants during the reign of the Piast Dynasty] (Lublin, 2016), concern only the German perception of Poles in the Middle Ages and the scope of their analysis ends in the fourteenth century. 10 Wokół stereotypów Niemców i Polaków [Around the stereotypes of Germans and Poles], ed. Wojciech Wrzesiński (Wrocław, 1993); Tomasz Szarota, Niemcy i Polacy. Wzajemne

Introduction

5

as well a clear imbalance between the historical research on German stereotypes about Poles versus the other way around (the Polish research is wider and deeper). This disproportion is even greater if we consider works related to the Middle Ages. Nor is it compensated for by studies on medieval literature and the opinions found in them.11 The deficiencies and imbalances in the studies of the mutual perception of these two large European nations in an important period of the birth of the literary and scientific traditions of both nations is a topic worthy of further attention even beyond the studies collected in this volume. When speaking of stereotypes, we must consider two important and seemingly opposite pairings: ‘Own/self’ and ‘others’ are central terms in the discourse about stereotypes. Research in recent decades shows clearly that the perception of ‘otherness’ tells us quite a lot about the construction of the ‘self’.12 The assigning of stereotypes to others, therefore, only functions on the basis of an actual interdependence of ‘self’ – ‘others’, as the German literature scholar Alois Wierlacher rightly states.13 It would certainly be wrong – specifically and especially for medieval history – to fall back on monolithic and static models, postrzeganie i stereotypy [Germans and Poles. Mutual perception and stereotypes] (Warszawa, 1996). 11 For example, it can be mentioned here: Robert F. Arnold, Geschichte der deutschen Polenliteratur, vol. 1: Von den Anfängen bis 1800 (Osnabrück, 1900, repr. 1966), this publication collects information rather superficially; similarly: Hasso von Zitzewitz, Das deutsche Polenbild in der Geschichte: Entstehung – Einflüsse – Auswirkungen (Köln, 1991); better but still fragmentary are: Deutsche Polenliteratur, ed. Gerard Koziełek/ Gerhard Kossellek (Wrocław, 1991); Arno Will, Kobieta polska w wyobraźni społeczeństw niemieckiego obszaru językowego od XIV do lat trzydziestych XX wieku [A Polish woman in the imagination of the societies of the German-speaking area from the 14th to the 1930s] (Wrocław, 1983); or: Paul M. Langner, Annäherung ans Fremde durch sprachliche Bilder: Die Region Polen und ihre Ritter in Dichtungen des Hochmittelalters (Berlin, 2018); and older: Andrzej F. Grabski, Polska w opiniach obcych X–XIII w. [Poland in the opinion of foreigners 10th–13th cc.] (Warszawa, 1964); id., Polska w opiniach Europy Zachodniej XIV–XV w. [Poland in the opinion of Western Europe 14th–15th century] (Warszawa, 1968). 12 Elisabeth Ganseforth, Das Fremde und das Eigene: Methoden – Methodologie – Diskurse in der soziologischen Forschung (Aachen, 2016). For the state of the art in medieval research cf. the introduction of Volker Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremen, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnold von Lübeck (Berlin, 2002). 13 Das Fremde und das Eigene, ed. Alois Wierlacher (München, 1985); Alois Wierlacher and Corinna Albrecht, “Kulturwissenschaftliche Xenologie,“ in Konzepte der Kulturwissenschaften: theoretische Grundlagen – Ansätze – Perspektiven, ed. Ansgar Nünning and Vera Nünning, 5th ed. (Stuttgart, 2008), 280–306.

6

Pleszczyński and Vercamer

as found, for example, in Johann Gottfried Herder’s conception of the issue when in 1791 he asked: Which people are there on earth who do not have their own culture?” He continues: “[…] the most natural state is therefore a people with a national character. For millennia, this […] remains the same.14 According to this view, known today as Herder’s Kugelmodell (sphere-model), each nation experiences bliss in its own culture, in peaceful coexistence with other peoples, yet it holds an unmistakable danger in itself, because it requires a clear culturally defined labelling of distinct peoples and nations. The social scientist Armin Triebel, therefore, warned in an article in 2012 that: “Cultures are not available for our observation as finished objects. Who the self is and who the others are, results from reciprocal processes of perceptions and collective identity formation.”15 He speaks of “intermediate spaces”, which can easily be overlooked, if one does not see the ‘own’ and the ‘other’ as alternatives and in constant change relative to one another. If one spent his childhood in the Late Middle Ages in Poland, his student years in Paris and began his early career in Germany, he already has several layers of identities, even though he might have returned in his later years to Poland to serve at the court of the Polish king. It is precisely this that must be taken into consideration when viewing most of the medieval chroniclers and writers. We know this, for example, about Jan of Czarnkau, the vice-chancellor of the Polish king Casimir III and one of the most important historiographers of Poland in the second half of the 14th century. He first served for many years as chancellor for the bishop of Schwerin in Mecklenburg/Germany. Did he feel one hundred per cent ‘Polish’ or possibly a little bit ‘German’ as well? That leads to the question: what, in this case, did ‘German’ mean at all? There might be different parameters to a national labelling; one of the most important factors in that discourse would seem to be the language. In an essay by Michael Wolffsohn, which was published in the summer of 2017 in the Berlin Tagesspiegel (a widely recognized newspaper in Germany) as part of a series 14 J.G. Herder, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, 2. Vols. (Berlin/Weimar 1784/91, repr. 1965), vol. I, 8 and 368 [Transl. GV]. Original: „Welches Volk der Erde ist’s, das nicht eigene Kultur habe?“, „[…] der natürlichste Staat ist also auch ein Volk, mit einem Nationalcharakter. Jahrtausendelang erhält sich dieser in ihm […].“ 15 Armin Triebel, “Autonomie der Kultur und internationale Politik,“ in WIKA-Report 1 (2012): 73, with reference to Georg Elwert, “Deutsche Nation,“ in Handwörterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands, ed. Bernhard Schäffers (Bonn, 2001), 123–134.

Introduction

7

in the newspaper dealing with the question “What is German?”, he places far more emphasis on the dynamics and changeability of all parameters involved (geography, theology, economics, sociology, culture, etc.) rather than on the stability and static state of the same parameters.16 But in terms of language, he emphasizes a certain degree of stability and cited the American political scientist Karl W. Deutsch, who saw a nation as a “community of communication.” This model is referring not only to the spoken language but also to a set of non-verbal common rituals and customs in a given culture.17 Nonetheless, the spoken language plays a major role. Using that linguistic element as a criterion for distinguishing modern nations seems quite reasonable in so far as it finds its equivalent in the medieval period (at least for the High and Late Middle Ages).18 It should be pointed out that in Polish the Germans are called “Niemcy”. – The historical etymology points to “niemy”, in English: “dumb or mute”. That significance should not be underestimated: It means that the Poles once looked at the Germans as persons with whom they could not communicate.19 That seems to be the reason for the Polish saying: “Jak świat światem nie będzie Niemiec Polakowi bratem” [As long as the world exists, a German will never be a brother to a Pole].20 And indeed, the growing negative atmosphere in Poland against the Germans in the 13th century was caused by the difference in language in various contexts: church Masses were read in German, priests were trained in German, and so on. At this same time, we should not forget that a large influx of Germans into Poland took place (at the invitation of especially the Silesian princes). 16 Michael Wolffsohn, “Deutsch à la carte,“ in Tagesspiegel, Nr. 23147 (17.06.2017), 5. 17 Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication. An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality, 2nd ed. (Cambridge/London, 1962), 96–100; id., Nationenbildung, Nationalstaat, Integration, aus dem Amerikanischen übersetzt von Norman Gonzales, Düsseldorf, 1972, 204. 18 Joachim Ehlers, “Was sind und wie bilden sich nationes im mittelalterlichen Europa (10.– 15. Jahrhundert)? Begriff und allgemeine Konturen,“ in Mittelalterliche nationes, neuzeitliche Nationen. Probleme der Nationenbildung in Europa, ed. Almut Bues and Rex Rexheuser (Wiesbaden, 1995), 7–26. 19 Idzi Panic, Zachodniosłowiańska nazwa „Niemcy” w świetle źródeł średniowiecznych [The West Slavic name “Germany” in the light of medieval sources] (Katowice, 2007), 133–152. 20 Cf. Barbara Rodziewicz, „Póki świat światem, nie będzie Niemiec Polakowi bratem – językowy stereotyp Niemca (model archaiczny)“ [As long the world is the world, a German will not be a brother to a Pole – the linguistic stereotype of a German (archaic model)], Annales Neophilologiarum 3, 2009, 129–35; also: Gerard Labuda, “Geneza przysłowia ‘Jak świat światem nie będzie Niemiec Polakowi bratem’,” [The origin of the proverb ‘As long the world is the world, a German will not be a brother to a Pole’] in Polsko-niemieckie rozmowy o przeszłości ed. id. (Poznań, 1996), 98–111.

8

Pleszczyński and Vercamer

These new settlers (in the countryside and in the cities) had a privileged legal position – in Krakow and Wroclaw they soon made up a large portion of the population. Although such privileges were natural for new settlers because they had to be attracted somehow, this caused a first “national” consciousness in Poland – masses were to be read in Polish, the “German element” (in the monasteries, for instance) was reduced intentionally, etc. The Gniezno archbishop, Jakób Świnka, († 1314) was a major player in this series of decisions.21 How do medievalists look on the ‘self’/‘other’-discourse (now that we have presented some modern views above)? In order to find answers, Volker Scior’s dissertation is very helpful, bearing the title “Das Eigene und Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremen, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von Lübeck“ (“The ‘Own’ and the ‘Foreign’. Identity and Strangeness in the Chronicles of Adam of Bremen, Helmold of Bosau and Arnold of Lübeck”). He stresses the point that in medieval studies there is no clear research consensus on ‘own’ and ‘foreign’, but it is nevertheless clear that ‘foreign’ always has its pivot point in ‘non-foreign’.22 In recent research, emphasis is therefore placed broadly on the medieval ‘writer’ (and his community). This means you get a more accurate picture of the author’s attitude toward his described objects. Every medieval author and his construction of the ‘other’ (in Scior’s conclusion) is unique to himself and therefore must be analyzed individually. Even just the geographical location of the writing creates differences: A German chronicler in Gdansk writing about the Poles very likely had many more contacts with Poles than an author sitting in Vienna – the former’s picture of the Poles being more precise and detailed than the latter’s. The concrete time period of the writing makes another difference: Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa’s verdict on this in her very helpful article “Poglądy polskich kronikarzy średniowiecznych na Niemcy i stosunki polsko-niemieckie” (“Medieval Polish Chroniclers’ Attitudes Towards Germans and Polish-German Relationships”),23 is clear; she writes that each generation of medieval writers had its own experience with the neighbor. The authors’ attitudes developed unconsciously, often driven by stereotypes in the

21 Jerzy Strzelczyk, “Die Deutschen in Polen im Mittelalter,” in Identitäten und Alteritäten der Deutschen in Polen in historisch-komparatistischer Perspektive, ed. Markus Krzoska and Isabel Röskau-Rydel (München, 2007), 36–37. 22 Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, 10. 23 Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Poglądy polskich kronikarzy średniowiecznych na Niemcy i stosunki polsko-niemieckie,”[Views of Polish medieval chroniclers on Germany and Polish-German relations] in Wokół stereotypów Niemców i Polaków, ed. Wojciech Wrzesiński (Wrocław, 1993), 15–72, at 15.

Introduction

9

cultural memory of the respective nation.24 People even today remember old medieval legends: for instance, in Poland there is the legend of Wanda and the German tyrant/emperor, which first appears in Vincent Kadłubek’s chronicle on the Poles (around 1205).25 An unnamed German emperor tries to conquer Poland but is, like all of his men, struck by the beauty of the Polish princess Wanda and then suddenly loses any ambition to subjugate her country. He asks his men to submit to Wanda and even commits suicide to make it easier for them to switch allegiances. This resembles modern national stereotypes: The strong German aggressor and the weak but pretty Polish lady, who dominates over physical aggression through her beauty. ‘Germans/Germany’ and ‘Poles/Poland’ – At what stage exactly may we apply these supra-regional, umbrella-like labels in the Middle Ages to ethnic groups actually living together in regional communities (e.g. Saxons, Silesians etc.)? They themselves had undergone different levels of development just back in the 9th/10th centuries, progressing from tribal structures to small principalities and tending to keep their regional identities (through customs, laws etc.). For the ‘national level’ we need to differentiate between labels coming from outside and the perception of identity from inside. Scholars such as Carlrichard Brühl, Jean-Marie Moeglin or Joachim Ehlers26 clearly show for the German side that the heirs of the Frankish Empire – France and Germany – became concretely tangible as entities around 1025 (with the Salian dynasty). Very importantly, these supra-regional collective names served writers and observers from outside, making it easier to grasp a larger entity than when applied from inside. Obviously, only a very elitist circle of the highest nobility within these new state constructions had a notion of being e.g., ‘Germans’. Especially in the case of the Holy Roman Empire, the kings and emperors also had to integrate the Burgundian and Italian parts of the Empire as well, which 24

Cf. Alberto Melucci, “The Process of Collective Identity,” in Social Movements and Culture, eds. Hank Johnston and Bert Kladersmans (London, 1995), 41–64. 25 Cf. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Rudiger von Bechelaren którego, nie chciała Wanda. Przyczynek do kontaktu niemieckiej Heldenepik z polskimi dziejami bajecznymi” [Rüdiger von Bechelaren whom Wanda did not want. A contribution to the contact of the German Heldenepik with Polish fabulous history], Przegląd Historyczny 75 (1984), 239–247. 26 Carlrichard Brühl, “Die Anfänge der Deutschen Geschichte.” in Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 10 (Frankfurt am Main, 1972), 147–181, 173; Carlrichard Brühl, Deutschland-Frankreich. Die Geburt zweier Völker (Köln-Wien, 1995); Jean-Marie Moeglin, “Die historiographische Konstruktion der Nation: ‘Französische Nation’ und ‘deutsche Nation’ im Vergleich,” in Deutschland und der Westen Europas im Mittelalter, ed. Joachim Ehlers (Stuttgart, 2002), 353–377; Joachim Ehlers, Die Entstehung des deutschen Reiches, 3rd ed. (München 2010).

10

Pleszczyński and Vercamer

made a specific and solely German identification harder to develop. In the Polish case, the habilitation of Andrzej Pleszczyński from 2008 (translated into English in 2011) sums up the state of the research on early Polish identity to that point.27 A similar sequence as to what manifested in Germany becomes visible in Poland: Regional communities from Lesser Poland, Silesia, Pomerania or Masovia, came into being during an earlier period, and then gradually from 963 onward they were subjugated by the Piast princes and incorporated into Greater Poland (namely by Mieszko I and Boleslav I). As a consequence, we can identify references to Poland in the early 11th century. Once again, we are dealing most of the time with very scarce source material such as short notes in annals, which gives us only an idea of the perception and self-identification of Polish nobles within the Polish population at that time. But at least we can state that at the beginning of the 11th century a notion arose of a larger unity that encompassed more than merely regional levels in the given countries. This happened well before the creation of most of the written records that serve here as sources for our inquiry. It would be, in any case, a major fault to think too ‘block-like’ (here the Holy Roman Empire, there Poland). Naturally some national juxtapositions and comparisons can be found for the texts of the 10th–15th centuries, but the references to either ‘region’, or certain ‘social groups’ (knights, merchants, nobles) or ‘individuals’ (kings, archbishops etc.) in the narrations of the historiographical texts outweigh definitely the judgments of the writers about the other’s nation. This is an aspect which has been surprisingly not clearly enough expressed or differentiated in many modern studies on the topic. Too often academics look through their own (nationally tinted) glasses rather than through the eyes of the medieval writers. We have to remember: Frequently in the Middle Ages, national-collective appellations were imposed first from the outside, as when Pope Gregory VII (at the time of the investiture dispute with Henry IV) spoke about the emperor for the first time as of the ‘German king’ (rex Teutonicorum)28 – German chroniclers up to this time had not done so, because obviously they did not perceive themselves in that national way in the 11th century (as mentioned above). The regional link and identification 27 Andrzej Pleszczyński, Niemcy wobec pierwszej monarchii piastowskiej (963–1034): narod­ ziny stereotypu; postrzeganie i cywilizacyjna klasyfikacja władców Polski i ich kraju (Lublin, 2008); and its translated and corrected edition: Id., The birth of a stereotype: Polish rulers and their country in German writings c. 1000 A. D. (Leiden, 2011). 28 Cf. Lutz von Padberg, “Unus populus ex diversis gentibus. Gentilismus und Einheit im früheren Mittelalter,“ in Der Umgang mit dem Fremden in der Vormoderne. Studien zur Akkulturation in bildungshistorischer Sicht, ed. Christopf Lüth (Köln, 1997), 155–193, 158.

Introduction

11

were much stronger for most persons in the Middle Ages, which the studies of Herbert Ludat clearly show for the Northeast-German-Polish contact zone (using information on the interactions between the Ekkardiner, as the dominant noble family in the 11th century in eastern Germany, and the Piasts) and as well the studies by Sławomir Gawlas or Tomasz Jurek of the Silesian perception of ‘own’ and ‘other’.29 One last aspect within this issue: Narrations about individuals of the other’s nation should under no circumstances be transferred one-to-one to a notion of the entire ‘other’ nation or the entire people. Upon closer inspection, some of those narrations can be unmasked as colored by personal sympathies or antipathies. If for instance Thietmar, the Bishop of Merseburg (and also a famous chronicler), in the early 11th century portrays a predominantly negative image of the Piast prince Bolesław I,30 then this is mainly due to the fact that Bolesław Chrobry (the brave) cooperated closely with the noble family of the Ekkardiners – a relationship made more intense through numerous marriage connections. The Counts von Walbeck, a family from which Thietmar himself stemmed, were clearly disadvantaged by these marital politics, for they were active in the same area. His negative image of the Polish king can be and was often easily mistaken for a national dislike of the Poles. To speak of nations, regions, groups or individuals (with their habitus) means in all of the cases that one is referring to units which were linked by cultural similarities and behavior. Researchers working on these different units tend to form rigid categories that allow them to analyze and differentiate these units clearly from each other. But in recent years, the concept of cultural transfer has been the subject of many debates within historical research.31 ‘What constitutes culture at all?’ – was asked. Would it not be better to understand it 29

Herbert Ludat, An Elbe und Oder um das Jahr 1000: Skizzen zur Politik des Ottonenreiches und der slavischen Mächte in Mitteleuropa (Köln, 1971); Sławomir Gawlas, “Ślązacy w oczach własnych i cudzych. Uwagi o powstaniu i rozwoju regionalnej tożsamości w średniowieczu,” [Silesians in the eyes of their own and others. Notes on the emergence and development of regional identity in the Middle Ages] in Ślązacy w oczach własnych i obcych, ed. Antoni Barciak (Katowice, 2010), 41–67; Tomasz Jurek, “Między Polską, Niemcami i Czechami. Średniowieczny Śląsk i jego kultura,” [Between Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic. Medieval Silesia and its culture] in Tradycje śląskiej kultury muzycznej XIV 1, ed. Anna Granat-Janka (Wrocław, 2017), 39–60. 30 E.g. Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon V/10, MGH SSrG. N.S. 9, 204. See also: Ludat, An Elbe und Oder, 18. 31 Cf. Michel Espagne, “Der theoretische Stand der Kulturtransferforschung,” in Kulturtransfer. Kulturelle Praxis im 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Wolfgang Schmale (Innsbruck, 2003), 63–76 – with further literature.

12

Pleszczyński and Vercamer

dynamically rather than statically? How could it even be transferred into other regions or periods? Meaning: How might we measure and grasp culture at all? A glance into a major German encyclopedia makes it clear that at the least, the term ‘culture’ is used quite broadly: A creation produced by people at certain times and in enclosed regions on the basis of the abilities provided them for dealing with the environment and shaping it by their actions in theory and practice (language, religion [myth], ethics, institutions, state, politics, law, crafts, technology, art, philosophy and science).32 With such a diversity and variability, how can one dare to identify even the transfer of culture? Michel Espagne’s general definition may help here: We start with the notion that cultural areas are not independent entities, but rather that their respective identities are the result of a multitude of interwoven threads. This working hypothesis naturally also has political implications. It culminates at the point where one has to emphasize the dimension of the ‘foreign’ in what is one’s ‘own’, and in my case this is French cultural history. The ‘foreign’ and the ‘own’ are not complementary moments, but essentially identical moments of a single historical construct.33 He continues elsewhere: “The model of cultural transfer as an alternative to simple comparisons presupposes that the social carriers of cultural import are to be especially researched. These include, for example, the social groups that moved between Germany and France, artisans, 32 “Kultur,” in Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon 14 (Mannheim, 1975), 437 [transl. GV]. Original citation: „Das von Menschen zu bestimmten Zeiten in abgrenzbaren Regionen aufgrund der ihnen vorgegebenen Fähigkeiten in Auseinandersetzung mit der Umwelt und ihrer Gestaltung in ihrem Handeln in Theorie und Praxis Hervorgebrachte (Sprache, Religion [Mythos], Ethik, Institutionen, Staat, Politik, Recht, Handwerk, Technik, Kunst, Philosophie und Wissenschaft).” 33 Espagne, “Kulturtransfer – Podiumsgespräch,” in Kulturtransfer, ed. Schmale, 15. Original citation: “Wir gehen davon aus, dass die Kulturräume keine eigenständigen Größen sind, sondern dass ihre jeweilige Identität das Ergebnis einer Vielzahl von Verflechtungen ist. Diese Arbeitshypothese hat natürlich auch eine politische Tragweite. Sie läuft darauf hinaus, im Eigenen, also in meinem Fall in der französischen Kulturgeschichte, die Dimension des Fremden zu betonen. Fremdes und Eigenes sind nicht ergänzende Momente, sondern im Grunde identische Momente eines einzigen historischen Konstrukts.”

Introduction

13

musicians, soldiers, wine merchants, bankers, high school teachers. In addition to social groups, books, sometimes complete libraries, are also to be understood as carriers of foreign cultural assets.”34 These statements on cultural transfer blend fairly well with the issue as discussed above, namely, that the medieval authors in particular must be investigated and discussed in order to understand their perception. To sum up: The mutual perceptions of (mainly) Germans and Poles in the Middle Ages in the eyes of medieval authors (chroniclers, authors of hagiographic texts, poets) has seldom been researched in the past and they form a desideratum. This volume consciously tries to create a counterpart to the modern period (which has been covered much better in this regard); our goal is to fill in the gaps. In order to do so in a proper way and to provide a certain level of comparability, the editors have added to the main body of texts on the German-Polish perception-contributions articles (see the first section: Georg Jostkleigrewe, Isabelle Chwalka, David Kalhous) that deal as well with the views towards the Germans of the medieval authors from England, France and Bohemia (the other neighbors of the Holy Roman Empire). The first article in this section (Kristin Skottki), within this set of ‘wider articles’, serves as a introduction to the whole issue in focusing on the Holy Land and the perception of (religious) ‘otherness’ during the crusades. These four articles serve generally, as mentioned above, to compare structural patterns of ‘otherness’/’othering’ to the German-Polish case. In the second and third section six contributions (Andrzej Pleszczyński, Sławomir Gawlas, Roman Michałowski, Volker Scior, Norbert Kersken, Stephan Flemmig) are offered as to the direct mutual perception of Germans and Poles in the medieval period in hagiographical and historiographical sources. In addition, in the third section we also shift from specifically historical sources to literary sources, with two authors (Paul Martin Langner, Florian Schmid) focusing on German medieval epics and poems and the views of the Poles contained in them. A fourth section connects five studies (Wojciech Mrozowicz, Grischa Vercamer, Adam Szweda, 34

Espagne, “Der theoretische Stand,” 64. Original citation: „Das Modell des Kulturtransfers als Alternative zum einfachen Vergleich setzt voraus, dass die sozialen Träger des Kulturimports besonders zu untersuchen sind. Darunter versteht man beispielsweise die sozialen Gruppen, die zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich pendeln, Kunsthandwerker, Musiker, Soldaten, Weinhändler, Bankiers, Gymnasiallehrer. Neben den sozialen Gruppierungen sind auch Bücher, manchmal vollständige Bibliotheken als Träger fremder Kulturgüter zu verstehen.”

14

Pleszczyński and Vercamer

Marcin Starzyński, Piotr Okniński) on regional German-Polish contact zones in the Middle Ages (Silesia, Prussia, and examples of a town with both German and Polish residents: Kraków). In a fifth section one contribution (Jarochna Dąbrowska-Burkhardt) reflects on national stereotypes in the modern period between German and Poles to give some theoretical and modern background to the medieval material. There is one concluding reflection (Thomas Wünsch) serving as a final summary and theoretical overview of the presented material.

PART 1 Zones of Comparison in Medieval Europe: Theory and Examples

∵

chapter 2

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade Kristin Skottki 1

The Times and Spaces of Others in History

Before the issue of the representation of Muslims in medieval European chronicles of the First Crusade1 can be explored in greater depth, it is necessary as a first step to reflect more generally on the limits and possibilities of historiography in representing the ‘other’. Reflecting on the spatial and temporal processes of identity and alterity construction in the creation of the medieval and the modern, the East and the West – or rather the Orient and the Occident – may help in understanding not only how medieval crusade chroniclers portrayed their opponents but also how modern historians can cope with their portrayals in a responsible manner. One of the most important insights from constructivist approaches for the conception of history might be that history only exists if someone in the present tries to make sense of what has happened in the past – this is not only true for contemporary historians, but also for medieval chroniclers. History (as an academic discipline) as well as modern and premodern historiography are always just attempts at reconstructing the past as plausibly and truthfully as possible, but it is impossible to recreate the past in its entirety.2 The limits of reconstruction are not only set by the available source material, but also by the interests, agendas and perspectives of the historians and chroniclers who try to tell the story of a given historical 1 For recent studies on the portrayal of the early crusaders’ Muslim opponents cf. Nicholas Morton, Encountering Islam on the First Crusade (Cambridge, 2016); Kristin Skottki, Christen, Muslime und der Erste Kreuzzug. Die Macht der Beschreibung in der mittelalterlichen und modernen Historiographie, Cultural Encounters and the Discourses of Scholarship 7 (Münster, 2015); Martin Völkl, Muslime – Märtyrer – Militia Christi: Identität, Feindbild und Fremderfahrung während der ersten Kreuzzüge (Stuttgart, 2011) and Armelle Leclercq, Portraits croisés: L’image des Francs et des Musulmans dans les textes sur la Première Croisade. Chroniques latines et arabes, chansons de geste françaises des XIIe et XIIIe siècles, Nouvelle bibliothèque du Moyen Âge 96 (Paris, 2010). 2 Ironically, this insight is not new at all, but can already be found in one the fundamental manifestos of early Historicism, see Johann Gustav Droysen, Grundriss der Historik: Vorlesungen zur Geschichtswissenschaft und Methodik (Leipzig, 1868).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_003

18

Skottki

phenomenon, and finally also by the limits and possibilities of the historiographical text type (in German: “Textsorte”). It is important to differentiate between the past and history – the first is what we are aiming at, but which is irretrievably gone; the second is what we are able to shape, to define, to ‘make’. This understanding of history as a space for negotiating the meaning and relevance of the past for the present (and, not to forget, the future), is a necessary prerequisite to finally overcoming a positivistic reading of medieval historiography as a clear and undistorted mirror reflecting historical reality. This also accounts for the fact that historical narratives always entail processes of translation, explanation and – of course – representation, which are intimately bound to the agency and social contexts of the ‘producers’ of history (or rather: historiography). History has no ontological status per se, it is a relational phenomenon; it is based on the process of relating one thing with another, that is, the present with the past.3 If we take this strong connection between the past and present seriously, it is no wonder that assertions and judgements about the past are always (but often only implicitly) formulated as comparisons – comparisons between now and then, ‘us’ and ‘them’. This means that representations of the past are by nature also statements about the present.4 More importantly, constructions of identity and alterity (or ‘otherness’) are per se nothing that needs to be condemned: observing and creating criteria of equality and similarity as well as of difference and inequality when comparing one thing with another, as well as identifying continuities and discontinuities between a ‘then’ and the ‘now’, may well be understood as anthropological constants.5 They are basal processes of structuring experiences of time, space and human encounters. But historical experience teaches a different lesson: in most cases, statements about differences or inequalities also contain negative value judgements6 and they may – metaphorically speaking – gain a life of their own if authoritative voices repeat and foster them continuously. This process of 3 Cf., for example, Chris Lorenz, “‘The Times They Are a-Changin’. On Time, Space and Periodization in History,” in Palgrave handbook of research in historical culture and education, eds. Mario Carretero, Stefan Berger, and Maria C.R. Grever (London, 2017), 104–133, and Breaking up time: Negotiating the borders between present, past and future, eds. Chris Lorenz and Berber Bevernage, Schriftenreihe der FRIAS School of History 7 (Göttingen, 2013). 4 Richard Utz called our attention to the very meaning of the word representation – it is re-present-ation (in German: ‘Ver-gegen-wärtigung’; ‘making present again’), see Richard Utz, “Coming to Terms with Medievalism,” European Journal of English Studies 15/2 (2011), 102. 5 Cf. William S. Sax, “The Hall of Mirrors: Orientalism, Anthropology, and the Other,” American Anthropologist. New Series 100/2 (1998), 292–299. 6 Note that negative value judgements are not necessarily restricted to the ‘other’ or the ‘then’ but may also serve to criticize the ‘self’ and the ‘now’.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

19

reification reaches its full extent when a community (or even a whole society) believes in the reality and genuineness of the value judgement as a statement about the nature (or the ontic status) of a thing. A perfect example for this would be the value judgements contained in the term ‘medieval’ – especially when used outside of academic Medieval Studies. But an even greater challenge for medievalists is that their very research subject or reference value – the so-called Middle Ages – is an ephemeral phenomenon. Just like history in general, an epoch or a period of time has no ontological status per se, but functions as a grid to structure time and human experiences. As periods and epochs are nothing ‘natural’, they are by definition constructions based on qualifying certain historical events and developments as epochal, as periodic changes that mark the beginning and the end of an epoch.7 Although it might sound objective, detached, and ‘innocent’ to say that the Middle Ages began around 500 AD and ended around 1500 AD, such a statement already contains a whole range of underlying assumptions, decisions, and value judgements. To choose this traditional dating is to stress the disruption of Roman antiquity as the beginning of the Middle Ages and to stress the fresh starts of the so-called ‘Age of Discovery’, Renaissance and Reformation as their end.8 Not only does this dating reify the Middle Ages as a Western, Occidental or European (or Euro-Mediterranean at most) epoch, it also seems to confirm many of the negative images characterizing the Middle Ages since their invention as an epoch. It is well known that the first ideas of a medium aevum, a dark and sinister period of time wedged in between a good origin and its rediscovery, were formulated by Renaissance artists already back in the 15th century and by Protestant theologians in the 16th and 17th centuries.9 While the first ones were longing for the ‘good style’ of the ancients, judging medieval art as barbaric and Teutonic/Germanic, the others were longing for the true spirit of the pristine Christian community, assessing medieval church history as the age of papal tyranny. Keeping this in mind may help in remembering that ‘The Middle Ages’ never worked as a self-definition, as people in that period had very different ideas about and images of the structures of time and history.

7 Cf. Lorenz, “‘The Times They Are a-Changin’,” 120–124. 8 For the discussion of alternatives cf. for example Alteuropa – Vormoderne – neue Zeit: Epochen und Dynamiken der europäischen Geschichte (1200–1800). Heinz Schilling zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Christian Jaser, Ute Lotz-Heumann and Matthias Pohlig, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung Beiheft 46 (Berlin, 2012). 9 Nathan Edelman, “The Early Uses of “medium aevum”, “moyen-âge”, Middle Ages,” Romanic Review 29/1 (1938), 3–25.

20

Skottki

The label ‘Middle Ages’ was and always is by its very nature a way to express and create difference and otherness. German historian Otto Gerhard Oexle coined an appropriate notion: the “divided Middle Ages” (German: entzweites Mittelalter).10 He observed that, depending upon the self-perception and the perception of the present state of things, people tend to either represent the Middle Ages as a point of origin, as the roots of the present, stressing the continuity as development from medieval events and developments to our world today; or they tend to represent the Middle Ages as the ‘other’, the estranged (German: fremdgewordene) past which the modern world has overcome for good, stressing the caesura, changes and divisions between past and present.11 Both ways of imaging the period can be filled with positive and negative judgements about the past – again depending upon the image of the self and the present. I would like to call this phenomenon ‘the point of origin’s uncanniness’,12 for the very reason that ‘The Middle Ages’ presents not the ‘radical other’ of Modernity, but rather the estranged past and the estranged self, or as John Ganim put it: Beneath its apparent stability as an idea, the Middle Ages repeatedly has been represented as both domestic and foreign, as both historical origin and historical rupture, as both native and ‘native’.13 ‘The Middle Ages’ is – more or less consciously – used as a secured space of negotiation and reflection of everything that is understood to be ‘not modern’.14 But the issue is even more complex, as not only ‘The Middle Ages’ is an inherently Eurocentric concept of time and space, the same is also true for 10 Otto G. Oexle, “Das entzweite Mittelalter,” in Die Deutschen und ihr Mittelalter: Themen und Funktionen moderner Geschichtsbilder vom Mittelalter, ed. Gerd Althoff, Ausblicke (Darmstadt, 1992), 7–28. 11 For a later English version cf. Otto G. Oexle, “The Middle Ages through Modern Eyes. A Historical Problem: The Prothero Lecture,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9 (1999), 121–142. Note that Oexle was convinced that it was possible to overcome this dichotomy. Max Weber was his favorite example for a ‘better’ historiographical approach to studying medieval history. 12 For the ‘uncanniness’ of the medieval cf. Kathleen Biddick, The Shock of Medievalism (Durham, 1998). 13 John M. Ganim, “Native Studies: Orientalism and Medievalism”, in The Postcolonial Middle Ages, ed. Jeffrey J. Cohen, The New Middle Ages (New York, 2000), 123–34, at 131. 14 Cf. especially Kathleen Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty: How Ideas of Feudalism and Secularization Govern the Politics of Time, The Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia, 2008); Carol Symes, “The Middle Ages Between Nationalism and Colonialism,” French Historical Studies 34/1 (2011), 37–46.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

21

‘Modernity’ (and not-to-be forgotten ‘Antiquity’). Now, ‘Modernity’, unlike ‘Middle Ages’ (and ‘Antiquity’), serves as a hegemonic label of self-definition and is not simply employed to designate an epoch of European history. ‘Modernity’ is also used to name the spatial expansion of everything that is regarded as the ‘achievements of Modernity’ such as freedom, science, human rights, individuality and last but not least, secularism. This seems to confirm the claim that these achievements are not only European or Western by origin, but also by nature.15 At the very same time, spaces and times of alterity are created by this notion – that is the pre-modern (or Middle Ages) and the non-European (especially the Orient/the East). This point needs to be stressed: Although we can already find ideas of a dark and ‘other’ medium aevum in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, ‘The Middle Ages’ in the sense of an epoch was only established at the end of the 18th century, a time period which is now commonly referred to as the Sattelzeit der Moderne (the “saddle period of Modernity”) – a term coined by Reinhart Koselleck, designating the century roughly between 1750 and 1850.16 In this period, and especially during the 19th century, the triadic, secular vision of history (Antiquity, Middle Ages, Modernity) finally had not only overlain alternative models of periodization but even ousted them – the European model of history and time reached global hegemony. Also, it was exactly this period of Western expansionism which was the heyday of Medievalism and Orientalism as evolving discursive formations and of the institutionalization and professionalization of Humanities like history (in the form of Historicism), Medieval Studies, and Oriental Studies as corresponding academic fields. Since the end of the 18th century, not only the Orient became ‘orientalized’ but also the Middle Ages were ‘medievalized’ in the collective memory and consciousness of ‘the West’. It was Kathleen Davis who most convincingly argued that the creation of the Middle Ages as ‘the Other’ was one of the major projects for the apologists of Modernity.17 One may then wonder why most discussions and debates about Modernity (or what is ‘modern’) on a first glance seem to lack references to the Middle Ages or to the non-European or non-Western world. But postcolonial critical intervention teaches us that this way of excluding and silencing ‘the other’ (or 15 Cf. the critique, for example, by Enrique Dussel, “Eurocentrism and Modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures),” boundary 2 20/3 (1993), https://doi. org/10.2307/303341. 16 Reinhart Koselleck, “Vorwort,” Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, eds. Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck (Stuttgart, 1972), xiii–xxvii, at XIV. 17 Davis, Periodization and sovereignty, 77–102.

22

Skottki

‘the subaltern’) is one of the major strategies of colonialism for maintaining global hegemony.18 But what has colonialism to do with the creation or invention of ‘The Middle Ages’? The indispensable prerequisite for understanding what postcolonial critical interventions aim at is the following: One needs to accept the notion that colonialism may not only be understood as a practice, as a certain type of rule, as a historical phenomenon of Western dominance in the age of Imperialism, but also as a discursive formation and a hegemonic epistemology.19 Postcolonial studies of the last 40 years20 have thoroughly shown that the process of ‘Eurocentrification’ did not end with the processes of formal decolonization in the first half of the 20th century at all, and that it may well have existed long before the 19th century. Because postcolonial interventions first and foremost are aiming at the conditions and premises of knowledge production, a number of philosophers and sociologists from Latin America have recently argued that we should seek to understand the logics of ‘coloniality’, that is the dominance of European culture as a universal cultural model with intimate ties to the ideas and ideals of Modernity and rationality.21 Therefore, it seems more appropriate to call the discursive formation and hegemonic epistemology of colonialism ‘coloniality’. These observations may finally help to reveal the interconnectivity between coloniality as an epistemology and Medievalism and Modernism as well as Orientalism and Occidentalism as intersecting discursive formations. Anthropologist James G. Carrier defined Occidentalism as the self-image of the

18

Cf. as one of the classics of postcolonial critique on the inability of ‘subaltern voices’ to gain a hearing within the colonial power structures Gayatri C. Spivak, Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea, ed. Rosalind C. Morris (New York, 2010). 19 For a classical overview of colonialism as an historical phenomenon cf. Frederick Cooper, Colonialism in question: Theory, knowledge, history (Berkeley, 2005). 20 One might argue that the initial release of Edward Said’s seminal study was one first important step toward establishing Postcolonial Studies as an academic field, cf. Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York, 1978). 21 See for example Aníbal Quijano, “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” Cultural Studies 21/2–3 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353; Walter Mignolo, “Delinking. The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality,” Cultural Studies 21/2 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162647. For the sake of my argument I unfortunately will have to leave out most of the programmatic claims of those intellectuals. I am aware that transferring and transforming concepts and concerns from postcolonial studies and the Latin American de-coloniality project run the risk of white-washing (in the most literal sense) and belittling the political and emancipatory aspects of these interventions.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

23

West against whose background the otherness of the Orient is created.22 He pointed out that Orientalism23 is always dialectically or contextually defined through Occidentalism. Accordingly, one could argue – taking up Oexle’s notion of the “divided Middle Ages” – that Medievalism is always contextually defined through Modernism, i.e. the self-image of modernity. Therefore, it is no wonder that specific forms of Medievalism and Orientalism are inherent to Modernism and Occidentalism alike: Orient and Middle Ages both appear to be parts of the estranged self – the allegedly secular and rational West finds its distorted mirror image in the religiously determined, affective and, if nothing else, medieval Orient.24 On a more complex level, recent anthropological studies have argued that because alterity constructions are per se always dialectical, they do not deal with ‘radical strangeness/otherness’, but instead, the ‘self’ is reflected as and negotiated in the other. William S. Sax put it this way: I contend that difference making involves a double movement, where the Other is simultaneously emulated and repudiated, admired and despised, and that the source of this ambivalence is the recognition of Self in Other. That is to say, the Other represents a kind of screen upon which both the despised and desired aspects of the Self can be projected, so that the dialectics of sameness and difference is resolved into a kind of difference in sameness, the culturally particular apprehended only against the background of the generically human.25 If ‘self’ and ‘other’ are not so far apart from each other, as anthropologists like Sax have argued, then the real function of alterity constructions becomes visible: they work as strategies of dissociation, as tools for disentanglements. They actually can be understood as ways of disguising or denying connections, relations and entanglements – spatially and temporally. 22 James G. Carrier, “Introduction,” Occidentalism: Images of the West, ed. James G. Carrier (Oxford, 1996). 23 Orientalism was most prominently criticized by Edward Said, cf. his definition in Edward W. Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, Penguin Modern Classics (London, 2012), 3: “Taking the late eighteenth century as a very roughly defined starting point Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient – dealing with it by making statements about, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.” 24 Cf. John M. Ganim, Medievalism and Orientalism: Three essays on literature, architecture, and cultural identity, The New Middle Ages (New York, 2005). 25 Sax, “The Hall of Mirrors,” 294.

24

Skottki

Many anthropological studies have argued that most problematic master narratives dealing with non-European cultures and peoples are based upon a phenomenon that Johannes Fabian has called ‘the denial of coevalness’ or ‘allochronism’, which manifests itself as a spatialization of time.26 It is a typical feature of these kinds of alterity constructions to position the research subject and the research object in different timescapes. The non-European ‘other’ is most commonly presented to be ‘frozen’ in a kind of timeless, ahistorical continuum, while in the case of Muslims and Islamicate societies, they are presented as living in a backward era of history, that is, the Middle Ages.27 Obviously, two different strategies in creating the ‘other’ of European Modernity exist: The first one presents parts of the world as the ‘nursery’ of modern European culture, starting in the Middle East and North Africa (Mesopotamia and Egypt respectively), in some cases even with the ‘Far East’, and then following the alleged westward movement of civilization to northwestern Europe (and finally spilling out to North America) – these territories are used as spaces for negotiating and reflecting the ‘self’; they form the timeand landscapes for Orientalism and Occidentalism. But those countries and parts of the world that are subsumed under the label of the ‘global South’ these days, especially Africa and Latin America, just have no place in this genealogy and therefore are indeed presented as the ‘radical other’.28 To the people in these parts of the world not only is coevalness denied, but even basic relevance and the existence of their own history – at least until their integration into the Modern world via bloody conquest and submission.29 Only rather recently and slowly can attempts at overcoming the exclusion of the radical non-European history also be observed in Western academia.30 It should be kept in mind that in the case of medieval history in general and crusade history in particular, we are dealing with alterity constructions that do not fall into the category 26 Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object (New York, 2002), with a new Foreword by Matti Bunzl. But cf. also the critical reassessment by Berber Bevernage, “Tales of pastness and contemporaneity: On the politics of time in history and anthropology,” Rethinking History 20/3 (2016), 352–74, https://doi.org/10.1080/13 642529.2016.1192257. 27 Just cf. the affirmative view in Dan Diner, Lost in the sacred: Why the Muslim world stood still (Princeton, NJ, 2009). 28 This is the point where I disagree with most of the Latin American thinkers of De-coloniality, as they contend Latin America became ‘the Other’ of Western Modernity after 1492. 29 Cf. again Dussel, “Eurocentrism and Modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures)”. 30 Cf. the efforts to establish the Global History approach in university curricula, Geraldine Heng, “The Global Middle Ages. An Experiment in Collaborative Humanities, or Imagining the World, 500–1500 C.E.,” English Language Notes 47/1 (2009): 205–16.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

25

of radical otherness – these are timescapes shaped by ideas of identity and alterity as well as continuity and discontinuity from within the present day Euro-Mediterranean world. To conclude this first part, the deliberate and reflected application of such concepts and terms like Orientalism and Occidentalism might be helpful in two different ways: not only may current concepts and methods help to shed new light on well-known sources and events and help to reveal details and aspects that so far have been overlooked or even ignored;31 applying them to other times and spaces may also help to sharpen their profile by disclosing their own historicity and situatedness – by highlighting where they may fit and where not. What follows from all that has been said above is that firstly, major differences between medieval alterity constructions and modern ones exist. Secondly, a rather banal insight from reflecting on the connection between Medievalism and Orientalism is – in regard to temporality – that in the time of the crusades, for example, the alterity label ‘medieval-ness’ for Muslims was, of course, not available. As the crusaders had no self-image containing an idea of their ‘modern-ness’, they could not use all the descriptive patterns which are so typical for (Neo)Orientalism32 these days. Thirdly, in regard to spatiality, we should also keep in mind that for medieval European Christians the biblical and ancient Orient (i.e. the Middle East) was not only a place of longing, but for the period of the crusades even a part of their very own territory again. In modern times, on the contrary, the Orient has almost exclusively changed into the space of the ‘others’, especially Muslim others. This means that fourthly, the logics of ‘coloniality’, designating the dominance of European culture as a universal cultural model, intimately tied to the ideas and ideals of Modernity and rationality, was of course also not at hand in the period of the medieval crusades. If such an epistemology like ‘coloniality’ already existed in the medieval period, it obviously worked quite differently than the ‘modern’ one.

31 Gender Studies, for example, have helped to overcome general assumptions about medieval women lacking a voice or agency and about the timelessness of the concepts of female and male gender. In regard to the crusades cf. Gendering the crusades, eds. Susan B. Edgington and Sarah Lambert (Cardiff, 2001). 32 In this case the compound ‘neo’ in Orientalism refers to a change in perspective since in the age of globalization the existence of ‘Orientals’ (that is to say: Muslim communities) as part of the social reality of Western societies forms an important part of this discourse, especially since 9/11, cf. for example Special Issue: Neo-Orientalism and Islamophobia: Post-9/11, ed. Katherine Bullock (special issue), American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21/3 (2004).

26 2

Skottki

What is in a Medieval Crusade Chronicle?

At first glance, the way Muslims were portrayed in crusade chronicles covering the First Crusade to the Levant at the very beginning of the 12th century seems to confirm all modern prejudices about medieval ignorance and stubbornness. The whole academic field of “Medieval Western Views (or Perceptions) of Islam” has shown over and over again, how ‘wrong’ and distorted Muslims and Islam were presented in most of medieval Western-Christian historiography.33 Scholars working in this field have brought forward different arguments trying to explain these distortions, but most come to the conclusion that medieval historians simply all too often deliberately sacrificed historical accuracy for the sake of ideology.34 ‘Ideology’ is here used to denounce the purpose of these accounts, that is, to provide future crusaders and larger Western Christian audiences with enemy stereotypes to justify their warfare, in other words, their crusades. These scholars certainly have a good point here. But what does this mean for our understanding of medieval historiography? To give it a name: Do the medieval chroniclers lie when they repeatedly promise to tell nothing but the truth, but then go on portraying their Muslim opponents as pagan idolaters worshipping a false trinity including “Mahomet” (i.e. Muhammad)?35 I do really hope that this is not the case. On the other hand, I certainly do not want to exclude this possibility completely. Another way to understand these accounts would be to assume that the chroniclers really did not know any better or, what might be worse, they did not want to know any better, therefore remaining stubbornly ignorant of the Islamic reality. Now, ignorance or deliberate distortion as two explanations for these misrepresentations both predominantly focus on the character of the author of a historiographical account. The author’s knowledge or lack thereof is taken as the causal explanation for the accurate or inaccurate portrayal of Islam and Muslims in these accounts.36 But I would like to argue that this 33 Cf. the classical studies by Norman Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh, 1960); Richard W. Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, MA, 1962); John V. Tolan, Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (New York, 2002). 34 Jean Flori, “La caricature de l’Islam dans l’occident médiéval: Origine et signification de quelques stéréotypes concernant l’Islam,” Aevum 66/2 (1992), 245–56; Daniel, Islam and the West. 35 Even though images of a ‘Saracen trinity’ are usually only to be found in vernacular literature, cf. Norman Daniel, Heroes and Saracens: An Interpretation of the “Chansons de geste” (Edinburgh, 1984). 36 Cf. for example on William of Tyre’s crusade chronicle, Rainer Christoph Schwinges, Kreuzzugsideologie und Toleranz: Studien zu Wilhelm von Tyrus, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 15 (Stuttgart, 1977).

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

27

is a rather fragile or precarious approach, mainly because we know so little about the authors. For the larger part of the crusade chronicles it is a matter of fact that all the information provided about the reputed authors comes from the texts themselves. Here it would be a dangerous trap to buy into the self-fashioning and staging of the narrator, the authorial voice within the text as the actual author-writer outside of the text. A way to circumvent this dilemma might be to take a closer look at the forms and functions of these texts, at the limits and possibilities of the text type ‘crusade chronicle’, to find other, complementary explanations for the obviously incorrect portrayals of Islam and Muslims within them. Crusade chronicles are a rather special and distinct type of text in medieval historiography. Monographic accounts of a very circumscribed subject of contemporary history are rather the exception. In the text type “historia” (to which almost all of the early Latin crusade chronicles belong) the events are not merely presented as matters of fact in a chronological sequence, but rather the emphasis is put on the interpretation of these historical events.37 In this text type ‘the narration of deeds done’ (“narratio rerum gestarum”) is structured to correspond with the historical-religious prior knowledge and expectations of the recipients, and the narrative is framed and interpreted on the basis of this specific knowledge. It is also important to remember that medieval historiography refers to more than just the empirical, rational reality – the appearance of saints, miracles, visions and God’s own intervention into this world are portrayed as true and very real matters of fact. At the same time, the effort to decipher the transcendent truth and reality behind the historical facts always heavily influenced the epistemology of medieval chroniclers.38 The medieval master narrative, the big plot that was established by the crusade chroniclers in the early 12th century was that the First Crusade had been an almost unbelievable success and the ‘good’ (i.e. the crusaders) defeated the ‘bad’ (i.e. the Muslim adversaries). This is a very important observation. The chroniclers obviously would not tell this story otherwise, for while the First Crusade was full of trials and tribulations, in the end, the crusaders achieved

37 Richard W. Burgess and Michael Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time. The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD. 1: A Historical Introduction to the Chronicle Genre from its Origins to the High Middle Ages, eds. Richard W. Burgess and Michael Kulikowski, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 33 (Turnhout, 2012), 189–268. 38 Laetitia Boehm, “Der wissenschaftstheoretische Ort der ‘historia’ im Mittelalter. Die Geschichte auf dem Wege zur ‘Geschichtswissenschaft’,” in Speculum historiale. Geschichte im Spiegel von Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsdeutung, eds. Clemens Bauer, Laetitia Boehm, and Max Müller (Freiburg i. Br., 1965), 663–93.

28

Skottki

their goal – which was obviously to the great surprise of most crusaders. Another specific characteristic of these texts is that the success was not primarily attributed to the military superiority of the crusaders, but to God, who, again and again, was identified as the arbiter of man’s fortunes and misfortunes. And in many cases, they went even further – portraying the crusade as the fulfilment of God’s own will, exemplified in the crusaders’ rallying cry “Deus vult” (“God wills it!”).39 If it was God’s own will that ‘his people’ from the West set out to liberate Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the unjust rule of a non-Christian adversary, this adversary had to be the enemy – not just in a military sense, but in a religious one as well. This is the theological or religious ‘truth’ of medieval crusade historiography: Muslims had to be portrayed as “pagani” (“pagans”) or as “inimici Dei” (“enemies of God”). According to the religious/theological world view and foreknowledge of medieval Christians, only four kinds of people existed in this world: (good) Christians, Jews, pagans and ‘bad Christians’, i.e. heretics, schismatics and apostates. Those people who were neither Jews nor Christians had either not received the gospel yet or stubbornly rejected it (i.e. ‘pagans’) or had left the community of the true believers (i.e. heretics, schismatics and apostates). This obviously also explains why nowhere in medieval historiography are the terms ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’ to be found, since according to the overarching religious framework, imagining a rival monotheistic religion with a truth claim of the same value as Christianity’ was simply unthinkable” – or at least unrepresentable. Martin Völkl nevertheless recently mentioned two contracts between Sancho IV of Navarra and the Muslim ruler of Zaragoza (Ahmad I. al-Muqtadir) from the 1060s and 1070s in which Sancho does indeed refer to his heterodox counterparts as “muzlemi”.40 Four possible explanations for this extremely rare exception to the rule41 might be: firstly, that unlike crusade chronicles, such diplomatic texts did not raise the claim to reveal the hidden, theological truth about the ‘others’. Secondly, that these contracts were explicitly and exclusively addressed to the Muslim community of Zaragoza and therefore did not need to be in accord with the Christian framework. Thirdly, that a text type like a peace treaty or an accord about the dependent relationship of neighboring powers demanded a respectful and appreciative way of 39

Cf. Sini Kangas, “Deus Vult. Violence and Suffering as a Means of Salvation during the First Crusade,” in Medieval history writing and crusading ideology, eds. Tuomas M.S. Lehtonen and Kurt Villads Jensen, Studia Fennica. Historica 9 (Helsinki, 2005), 163–74. 40 Völkl, Muslime – Märtyrer – Militia Christi, 190. 41 At least to my knowledge this is the only ever usage of this term in a premodern Latin Christian document.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

29

addressing one’s counterpart. Fourthly, that the religious model did not prevent medieval people from thinking of Muslims in other ways, especially if they had direct contact with them in a non-military environment. But in regard to crusade chronicles, we need to face a double hermeneutical difference: In medieval historiography, the only model available and applicable for understanding and presenting religious alterity or otherness was the fourfold one mentioned above. Modern historians need to understand that the idea of religious pluralism or even different revelations of the same value was not acceptable for medieval Christians, as it seemingly questioned the universality of the Christian truth claim, that is, salvation is only possible if one believes in Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind. To tell the story of the crusades, the othering of Muslims as pagans or heretics, the presentation of their negative (!) religious alterity, obviously was an inevitable feature of these texts. But note that cultural and ethnic, or even supposedly biological (phenotypic and genetic) alterity played only a minor role (if at all) in the portrayal of the Muslim adversary – unlike in modern (Neo-)Orientalism and anti-Muslim racism.42 For example, the Gesta Francorum (“Deeds of the Franks”) – the presumably earliest account of the First Crusade – contains a short passage usually referred to as “The Praise of the Turks”.43 Chapter Three of the Gesta Francorum describes the Battle of Dorylaeum on 1 July 1097, when the crusader army defeated the combined forces of Kilij Arslan (Seljuq Sultan of Rûm, 1092–1107) and Danishmend Gazi, ending with the following statement by the narrator: Quis unquam tam sapiens aut doctus audebit describere prudentiam, militiam et fortitudinem Turcorum? Qui putabant terrere gentem Francorum minis suarum sagittarum, sicut terruerunt Arabes, Saracenos et Hermenios, Suranios et Graecos? Sed, si Deo placet, nunquam tantum valebunt quantum nostri. Verumtamen dicunt se esse de Francorum generatione, et quia nullus homo naturaliter debet esse miles nisi Franci et illi. Veritatem dicam, quam nemo audebit prohibere: Certe, si in fide Christi et Christianitate sancta semper firmi fuissent et unum Dominum in trinitate confiteri voluissent, Deique filium natum de virgine matre, passum et resurgentem a mortuis et in caelum suis cernentibus discipulis 42 On the thorny question of whether ‘racism’ already existed in the Middle Ages, cf. Geraldine Heng, The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2018). 43 Edition and English translation:, Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum. The Deeds of the Franks and the Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, ed. Rosalind Hill, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1967).

30

Skottki

ascendentem, ac deinde consolationem Sancti Spiritus perfecte mittentem et eum in caelo et in terra regnantem recta mente et fide credidissent, ipsis potentiores vel fortiores uel bellorum ingeniosissimos nullus invenire potuisset: et tamen gratia Dei victi sunt a nostris.44 [Who – however wise or learned – would dare to describe the prudence, warfare and prowess of the Turks? (Who would dare to write about) those who thought they were able to fill with terror the Frankish people (at mere sight) of their arrows, just as they were able to scare the Arabs, Saracens, Armenians, Syrians and Greeks? But, if God wills, they will never become as able as ours. Veritably they claim to be of the same origin as the Franks and that no other man is naturally born to be a knight besides the Franks and themselves. (Now) I speak the truth which nobody will dare to hinder: Surely, if they had firmly held onto the faith in Christ and holy Christianity, if they had been willing to confide to the one Lord in his trinity, if they genuinely and wholeheartedly had believed that the Son of God was born by a virgin mother, suffered, was resurrected from the dead, ascended to heaven in plain view of his disciples, later sending them the all-encompassing consolation of the Holy Spirit and that He reigns in heaven as on earth, then you would not be able to find more powerful, braver and most ingenious warriors then them – but (nevertheless), thank God, the victory was ours.] Although this passage provides many conspicuous details, only three will be of interest here: Already the anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum, probably not writing much later than in the year 1100, takes into account the differences between the new ‘Turkish’ rulers of Anatolia (i.e. the Seljuks) and those people whose territories they had recently conquered – be they Muslim (‘Arabs’ and ‘Saracens’) or Christian (Armenians, Syrians and Greeks). Their ‘newness’ might also be the reason why the anonymous author provides his readers and listeners with the probably ‘invented’ Turkish saying about the common origin of Turks and Franks, which seems to go back to an early Frankish ‘origo gentis’-tale, claiming that both peoples descended from the refugees of ancient Troy.45 Interestingly enough, the authorial voice presents this myth of common 44 Gesta Francorum III, 9. All translations KS. 45 Cf. for example Alan V. Murray, “William of Tyre and the Origin of the Turks: Observations of Possible Sources of the ‘Gesta orientalum principum’,”in Dei gesta per Francos: Études sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard, eds. Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Jonathan Riley-Smith (Aldershot, 2001), 217–29.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

31

origin not as a ridiculous claim, but instead confirms its veracity. Finally, the statement “si in fide Christi et Christianitate sancta semper firmi fuissent” (“if only they had firmly held onto the faith in Christ and holy Christianity”) seems to imply that the Turks used to be Christians in previous times. Such a notion was not totally strange or alien to medieval thought, as the anonymous author here used a heresiological explanation for the (contemporary) religious alterity of the Seljuks. Although it is not stated explicitly, it seems that for the anonymous author, the ‘Turks’ (just like the ‘Saracens’ before them) were led astray by Muhammad or other heresiarchs.46 What might be disconcerting here is that in many other passages of the Gesta Francorum the different Muslim adversaries still are called ‘pagans’47, which is obviously contradictory, as ‘pagans’ can hardly be Christian heretics at the same time. But maybe this incoherence is not a deficiency of medieval historiography, but even a strength or an advantage: It offers different and even conflicting explanations for the thorny issue of religious heterodoxy and therefore mirrors the very different attitudes and opinions to be found in medieval Christian society. The apparently contradictory notion of the “Praise of the Turks” in the Gesta Francorum as well as the evaluation of the Muslim adversaries in most of the early crusade chronicles, praising the military prowess and chivalric behavior of some Muslim knights and noblemen on the one hand, and condemning their false religion on the other, should not be misunderstood as expressions of a schizophrenic attitude of medieval Christians towards ‘the other’. The same is true for the juxtaposition of massacres and peace treaties, of conflict and coexistence between crusaders and the Muslim inhabitants of the Levant in the course and aftermath of the First Crusade.48 All of this could be understood as an – again – schizophrenic coexistence of religious zealotry and secular pragmatism in the crusaders’ mind.49 But Nicholas Morton has recently argued for 46 Cf. for example John V. Tolan, “Anti-Hagiography. Embrico of Mainz’s ‘Vita Mahumeti’,” Journal of Medieval History 22/1 (1996), 25–41. 47 Especially often in the last book, cf. for example Gesta Francorum X, 33. 48 Cf. Michael A. Köhler, Alliances and Treaties Between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the Period of the Crusades, The Muslim World in the Age of the Crusades 1 (Leiden & Boston, 2013). 49 This traditional view can be found for example in Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “‘Multikulturelle Gesellschaft’ oder ‘persecuting society’? ‘Franken’ und ‘Einheimische’ im Königreich Jerusalem,” in Jerusalem im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter: Konflikte und Konfliktbewältigung – Vorstellungen und Vergegenwärtigungen, eds. Dieter R. Bauer, Klaus Herbers and Nikolas Jaspert, Campus historische Studien 29 (Frankfurt a. M., 2001), 55–93.

32

Skottki

the importance of a religious framework juxtaposing the logic of ‘Holy War’.50 With the theology of creation, a religious model of equality was also at hand. According to natural law, Muslims and Christians alike were God’s own creatures, therefore it should come as no surprise that crusaders and chroniclers were also able to describe their enemies as brave, noble and equally skilled on many occasions, in some cases even acknowledging their cultural superiority – or at least equality. Even in medieval crusade chronicles the Muslim adversaries were not reduced solely to their (negative) religious alterity. Another way to explain this observation, which Margaret Jubb fittingly has called “Enemies in the Holy War, but Brothers in Chivalry”,51 might be to relate it to William S. Sax’s above-mentioned statement about the “recognition of Self in Other”. While religious heterodoxy naturally had to be a despised and repudiated aspect of the Muslim other in the eyes of the crusaders, the Christian chroniclers and their audiences, they nevertheless ‘recognized’ shared values of military prowess and chivalric behavior which they obviously had in common with (some of) their noble and knightly Muslim adversaries – aspects they admired and emulated. And this is not only true for presumably lay audiences and writers – also clerical and monastic writers, commissioners and audiences of the crusade chronicles seem to have shared this ambivalent attitude, given that it can be found throughout the Occidental crusade literature.52 Re-evaluating the early medieval Latin chronicles of the First Crusade as a whole also makes clear that the enemy’s religion was not a central issue to the chroniclers. It is probably due to modern day readers’ fascination with the ‘wrong’ and distorted images of Muslims and Islam provided in the medieval source material as well as to the misreading of crusade history as a ‘clash of civilizations’ between Islam and Christendom that our vision of what at least the First Crusade was all about became rather blurred.53 The fighting and killing were not – primarily – an attempt to exterminate the “Saracen infidels”, but mainly to reestablish Christian rule over Jerusalem and the Holy Land. For some it was also a way to help the extremely endangered Byzantine empire.54 50 Morton, Encountering Islam on the First Crusade, 150–183. 51 Margaret Jubb, “Enemies in the Holy War, but Brothers in Chivalry. The Crusader’s View of Their Saracen Opponents,” Aspects de l’épopée romane. Mentalités, idéologies, intertextualités, eds. Hans van Dijk and Willem Noomen, (Groningen, 1995), 251–259. 52 An especially prominent example for this attitude is the portrayal of Saladin in Western sources, cf. for example Jonathan Phillips, The Life and Legend of the Sultan Saladin (London, 2019). 53 For an affirmative view of the latter cf. especially Thomas F. Madden, The crusades controversy: Setting the record straight (North Palm Beach, Florida, 2017). 54 Cf. Peter Frankopan, The First Crusade: The Call from the East (Cambridge, MA, 2012).

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

33

For a small number of high noblemen it was also a way to expand their own rule and territory.55 But for most participants it was obviously a way to gain salvation, which is why most of the early crusade chronicles repeatedly stress the penitential quality of the crusade for the participants – rather than laying much emphasis on the religion or culture of the adversaries.56 3

Timescapes of Identity and Alterity in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

Early crusade ideology and crusade theology are indeed mostly concerned with the right or wrong behavior of crusade participants – right or wrong in the eyes of God, of course. It was again Nicholas Morton who convincingly argued that it was less the engagement with their heterodox adversary which shaped the crusaders’ identity (as most models of medieval “othering” would have it), but more so the demand to behave and act according to God’s will, following the role model of Christ (imitatio Christi) and finally to labor for one’s own salvation.57 The crusade chronicles, as well as many other medieval texts, provide a vast number of stories about Christians who fail to fulfil God’s will, who dwell in sinful deeds and are described as being under demonic or even devilish influence. “Infideli”, or “increduli” are labels which are not exclusively used to denigrate Muslims but are also used to describe ‘bad’ Christians – especially those crusaders who, directly or indirectly, defer or endanger the conquest of Jerusalem.58 This observation also contains another lesson to be learned about medieval identity and alterity constructions – about the performative character of such ascriptions. While it is almost a mantra of recent postcolonial and transcultural studies to highlight the fluidity and complexity of today’s identity constructions, 55 Cf. as one example Jean Flori, Bohémond d’Antioche: Chevalier d’aventure (Paris, 2007). 56 This point was most prominently stressed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, cf. for example Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (Philadelphia, 2009). 57 Morton, Encountering Islam on the First Crusade, 153. 58 Raymond of Aguilers’s chronicle is full of such ascriptions, cf. my analysis in Kristin Skottki, “Vom ‘Schrecken Gottes’ zur Bluttaufe. Gewalt und Visionen auf dem Ersten Kreuzzug nach dem Zeugnis des Raimund d’Aguilers,” in Gewalterfahrung und Prophetie, eds. Peter Burschel and Christoph Marx, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Historische Anthropologie 13 (Wien, 2013), 445–90. Cf. also for example William of Tyre who calls Arnulf of Chocques, the later patriarch of Jerusalem, “firstborn of Satan, son of perdition” [“primogenitus Sathane, perdicionis filius”, William of Tyre Book X, 7], cf. the edition Robert B.C. Huygens, Hans E. Mayer and Gerhard Rösch, eds., Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, 2 Bde., CCCM 63 & 63A (Turnhout, 1986), 461.

34

Skottki

people in premodern times are often portrayed as one-dimensional, unchanging characters trapped in the godly ordained estates of the realm. It seems to me that even in recent medieval studies too much attention is being paid to the ways medieval historiography portrays people as who they are (provenance, religious affiliation etc.) – but too little attention is given to the ways they are portrayed in what they do, how they behave, how they act. If Nicholas Morton is right with his observation of God being the positive ‘other’ defining the identity of the crusaders as being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ believers (and I think he is), it is in perfect accordance with Christian theology to expect the believers to prove, maintain and perform their true faith through their actions, deeds and behavior – every single day. And this obviously also accounts for the image of the heterodox ‘other’, who was expected to perform his or her ‘good’ or ‘bad’ deeds as well. Robert of Reims’ crusade chronicle,59 for example, allocates a lot of space to the story of a Muslim traitor called Firouz,60 who presumably helped the crusaders enter the city of Antioch in early summer 1098. Even long before he received baptism, he is presented as a perfect example of “fides” (in both senses of the word, faith and faithfulness), because he did not break his promise and even stuck with the crusaders although (according to Robert’s account) two of his brothers were killed by overzealous crusaders when entering the city. The authorial voice comments on Firouz’ behavior with the following words: “Now truly, faith/fidelity came forth from an infidel, and from a stranger familiar and thorough love (came forth).” [“Nunc vero de infideli processit fides, et de extraneo familiaris et integra dilectio.”]61 During the double siege of Antioch (lasting from October 1097 to June 1098) many Christian crusaders performed their ‘infidelity’ and ‘disbelief’ by deserting their fellow crusaders, but Muslim Firouz performed his faith and fidelity. This, as well as many other examples, exemplifies that the nowadays oft quoted catch phrase from the Chanson de Roland “Christians are right, and

59 The “Historia Iherosolimitana” of Robert the Monk, eds. Damien Kempf and Marcus Bull (Woodbridge, 2013); English translation: Carol Sweetenham, ed., Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade: Historia Iherosolimitana, Crusade Texts in Translation 11 (Aldershot, 2006). 60 Other chronicles identify him as an Armenian Christian, cf. Robert Levine, “The Pious Traitor: Rhetorical Reinventions of the Fall of Antioch,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 33 (1998), 50–80; Kristin Skottki, “Of ‘Pious Traitors’ and Dangerous Encounters. Historiographical Notions of Interculturality in the Principality of Antioch,” Journal of Transcultural Medieval Studies 1/1 (2014), 75–115. 61 The “Historia Iherosolimitana” of Robert the Monk, 56.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

35

pagans are wrong”62 does not meet the complexity of the identity and alterity constructions in medieval crusade chronicles. Although the religious alterity of the Muslim adversaries was definitely seen as a deficiency, the moral qualities of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ had to be earned or proved by acts and behavior – by Muslims as well as by the crusaders. If, as stated above, (especially negative) alterity constructions mainly work as strategies of dissociation, as tools for disentanglements, they actually bear witness to connections, relations, encounters, and entanglements between self and other which had happened in the first place – this is the hidden historical reality medieval crusade chronicles indeed try to hide and disguise.63 These strategies of disentanglement obviously also worked very well, as people seem to have believed in the truthfulness of the medieval Western portrayal of Muslims and Islam at least until the 18th century. And even today scholars experience difficulties in uncovering these hidden realities as the narrative accounts with their “active othering” are so much more appealing to modern readers than the arduous effort it takes to reconstruct the day-to-day lived experiences in all those spaces and places of the medieval world where Christians, Muslims and others dealt with each other on a daily basis.64 Coming back to the question of spatial and temporal constructions of continuity and discontinuity, there is also a lot to be learned from these texts. The crusades in the Eastern Mediterranean and the establishment of the crusader states exemplify a profound conceptual reappraisal of the “Self” and its origin which occurred during the 11th century – it is the combination of the translatio salutis idea with a retrieved sacralization of what was now called the “Holy Land”.65 In (most of) the crusade chronicles, the “Franks” (gens Francorum) or even the whole Latin Church are presented as the New Israel or as the heirs of Christ, whose duty it now is to free and protect its country of origin and heritage in the Levant. 62 La Chanson de Roland, laisse LXXIX: “Paien unt tort e chrestiens unt dreit”, cf. Gerard J. Brault, ed., La Chanson de Roland: Oxford text and English translation (University Park, 1984). 63 Cf. for example Skottki, “Of ‘Pious Traitors’ and Dangerous Encounters. Historiographical Notions of Interculturality in the Principality of Antioch”. 64 Cf. Daniel G. König, “Medieval Western European Perceptions of the Islamic World. From ‘Active Othering’ to ‘the Voices in Between’,” in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History Band 4 (1200–1350), eds. David Thomas and Alex Mallett, History of Christian-Muslim Relations 17 (Leiden & Boston, 2012), 17–28; Brian A. Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom (c. 1050–c. 1615) (Cambridge, 2014). 65 For the ‘invention’ of the Holy Land cf. Julie A. Smith, “‘My Lord’s Native Land’: Mapping the Christian Holy Land,” Church History 76/1 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0009640700101398.

36

Skottki

While the biblical landscapes were of course always present in medieval Latin Christendom through liturgy and preaching, 11th century theology and pious practices saw a new emphasis on Christ’s passion, on the idea of the “Imitation of Christ” (imitatio Christi) and therefore also a renewed enthusiasm for the historical vestiges of the life and passion of Jesus Christ – that is (besides contact relics like the “True Cross” etc.) the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the Middle East. This new enthusiasm found its expression in a remarkable increase in pilgrimages to the “Holy Land” from the West during the 11th century, a development which was obstructed by the expansions of the Seljuks beginning in the second half of the 11th century and the ensuing conflicts between them, the Byzantine empire, and the Fatimids.66 Taking up this enthusiasm about the Holy Land, the crusade preachers presented the liberation of Jerusalem as the duty of each Catholic Christian (especially those who were able to bear arms).67 Now, what makes the conquests in the Levant during the crusading period so distinct is that the Latin Christian contemporaries did not understand them as conquests of a foreign territory, but as a re-conquest of their very own heritage. As either “the Sons of the Apostles”, “Christ’s heirs” or as “The New Israel”, the crusaders were understood to be the only legitimate rulers over the Holy Land. And the crusade chronicles bear witness to the process of legitimizing this claim by spatial and temporal constructions of continuity and discontinuity. Most of these texts not only pay little attention to Islam as a religion, but they also largely ignore, or rather suppress the Islamic history of the Levant, as well as the Byzantine or Oriental Christian history of these territories. They exclude from their narratives the history of the Holy Land between the days of Christ and the Apostles until the entry of the crusaders into these territories – about 1000 years of history are silenced as insignificant. This might well be due to a lack of information – but we also find this strategy among those chroniclers who actually lived in the Levant, as for example Fulcher of Chartres,68 Walter

66

Cf. John France, “Le rôle de Jérusalem dans la piété du XIe siècle,” Le partage du monde: Échanges et colonisation dans la méditerranée médiévale, eds. Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier, Série Byzantina Sorbonensia 17 (Paris, 1998) David Jacoby, “Bishop Gunther of Bamberg, Byzantium and Christian pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the eleventh century (2005),” Travellers, Merchants and Settlers in the Eastern Mediterranean, 11th–14th Centuries, Variorum Collected Studies Series 1045 (Farnham, 2014), 267–285. 67 Cf. Georg Strack, “The Sermon of Urban II in Clermont 1095 and the Tradition of Papal Oratory,” Medieval sermon studies 56 (2012), 30–45. 68 Fulcheri Carnotensis: Historia Hierosolymitana (1095–1127), ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913)

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

37

the Chancellor,69 and William of Tyre.70 They would have had the chance to gather such information (and probably even knew much about this history), but they were obviously unwilling to include such contents into their crusade chronicles. Therefore, it seems more likely that this blank space of time was created deliberately to establish a narrative of undisrupted continuity between the days of the pristine Christian community and the contemporary crusaders. Raymond of Aguilers, for example, praised the conquest of Jerusalem in July 1099 in the following way: In hac autem die ejecti apostoli ab Iherosolymis per universum mundum dispersi sunt. In hac eadem die, apostolorum filii Deo et patribus urbem et patriam vindicaverunt.71 [It was exactly today that (previously) the apostles were expelled from Jerusalem and dispersed throughout the whole world. On this very day (now) the sons of the Apostles took vengeance for the city and the whole fatherland of God and their forefathers.]. Another telling example for this constructed continuity is the renaming and reclaiming of the buildings to be found on the Temple Mount. Although the majority of crusade chroniclers were most probably aware of the fact that no Jewish or even Christian building had existed on the Temple Mount since the days of the Roman devastation in the year 70 AD, crusade chronicles stubbornly call the Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhrah) “templum Domini” (“Temple of the Lord”) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque is identified as “templum Salomonis” (“Temple of Salomon”).72 Converting both places into a church and a palace, 69 Galterii Cancellarii: Bella Antiochena, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Innsbruck, 1896). 70 Guillaume de Tyr, Chronique., eds. Robert B.C. Huygens, Hans E. Mayer and Gerhard Rösch, vol. 1–2, (Turnhout. 1986). William obviously was an exception to the rule as he also wrote a history of the “Oriental rulers” of the Levant, but this text did not survive, so it is hard to guess how he portrayed the ‘others’ in this text, cf. Murray, “William of Tyre and the Origin of the Turks”. 71 Raimundi di Aguilers Canonici Podiensis: Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens Occidentaux 3, ed. Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (Paris, 1866), 300. 72 Cf. Benjamin Z. Kedar, “1099–1187: the Lord’s Temple (‘Templum Domini’) and Solomon’s Palace (‘Palatium Salomonis’),” in Where heaven and earth meet: Jerusalem’s sacred esplanade, eds. Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jamal and Rania Daniel series in contemporary history, politics, culture, and religion of the Levant (Jerusalem, Austin, 2009); Michelina Di Cesare, „How Medieval Christians Coped with the Islamic Past of the Templum Domini (The Dome of the Rocks) and Read ‘Abd al-Malik’s Inscription“, Annali

38

Skottki

respectively, claimed both buildings to be of biblical origin, denying the obvious fact that both buildings were built much later by the Umayyads. A last example is the narrative presented in the crusade chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres. In its later chapters, covering the establishment of the crusader states up through the year 1127, the conquered territories are presented as the biblical landscape that needed to be restored and resettled by Western Christians, culminating in its most famous passage: Considera, quaeso, et mente cogita, quomodo tempore in nostro transvertit Deus Occidentem in Orientem. Nam qui fuimus Occidentales, nunc facti sumus Orientales. Qui fuit Romanus aut Francus, hac in terra factus est Galilaeus aut Palaestinus. Qui fuit Remensis aut Carnotensis, nunc efficitur Tyrius vel Antiochenus. (…) Quare ergo reverteretur in Occidentem, qui hic taliter invenit Orientem?73 [Please, consider and think through the ways in which God has transformed the Occident into the Orient in our own days. Because we who once were Occidentals have now become Orientals. Someone who used to be a Roman or a Frank has become a Galilean or Palestinian in this land. Someone who used to be an inhabitant of Reims or Chartres, is now a citizen of Tyre or Antioch. (…) So why should someone wish to return to the Occident, if he has found an Orient in such a manner?] In the latter parts of Fulcher’s chronicle, the Latin settlers, that is the Franks of Outremer, are presented as the new “verus Israel”, rightly reclaiming their original homelands as the fulfillment of God’s will. It does so not only by concealing the previous 1,000 years of history, but by also identifying the Muslim adversaries at the frontiers of the crusader states with the pagan “gentes” which were already always present since biblical times, and threating (more or less) God’s chosen people and the Promised Land. The idea of the crusaders and especially the Franks of Outremer re-enacting the settlement of Israel in the Promised Land is also to be found in Robert of Reims’s crusade chronicle. In Robert’s version of Pope Urban’s speech in Clermont he has him say:

dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. Rivista del Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici 74 (2014), 61–94. 73 Fulcheri Carnotensis, (II, 37) 747–749.

Constructing Otherness in the Chronicles of the First Crusade

39

Viam sancti Sepulchri incipite, terram illam nefarie genti auferte, eamque vobis subicite. Terra illa filiis Israel a Deo in possessionem data fuit, sicut Scriptura dicit que lacte et melle fluit.74 [Set out for the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from that nefarious people, and subject it to yourselves. That land which God had given into the possession of the children of Israel and of which the Scripture says that (it is a land) ‘flowing with milk and honey’.] These last examples show that at least since the beginning of the 12th century a crusade theology/ideology for the settlement of the conquered territories also was developed. This finally leads to the question of whether the First Crusade (and its aftermath) should be understood as a consequence of an early form of ‘coloniality’. Clearly, crusade ideology was not driven by the “dominance of European culture as a universal cultural model, intimately tied to the ideas and ideals of Modernity and rationality”. If, at all, it was driven by the conviction that the crusaders not only had the superior religion, but that God himself was on their side – at least if they acted according to God’s will. More importantly, according to the testimony of the early crusade chronicles what counted most for the crusaders was the re-establishment of (Catholic) Christian rule over the “Holy Land” – but hardly any attention is paid to the religious, legal and cultural status of the subjected Muslim (and non-Western Christian) communities living in the crusader states. No traces of a “civilizing mission” or even systematic attempts to convert the ‘others’ to Catholic Christianity can be found in these texts and in other historical documents.75 Sophia Menache, for example, has nevertheless understood Fulcher of Chartres’s strategy of ‘inverted inclusion’ as an early form of modern Orientalism: The transformation of the crusaders from Westerners into Easterners in Fulcher’s eschatology constitutes a conscious practice of erasing the ‘other’ by expropriating its identity. This was not, however, an act of including the Easterner into the crusaders’ Weltanschauung, but rather a symbolic denial that further served to exclude the Easterners altogether. 74 The “Historia Iherosolimitana” of Robert the Monk, 6. Cf. Ex. 3:8. 75 But in other theatres of war, like the crusades in the Baltic, (forceful) mission also did play an important role, cf. The Clash of Cultures on the Medieval Baltic Frontier. ed. Alan V. Murray (Farnham, 2009).

40

Skottki

The inverted inclusion of the Muslims became the last step on the long march of both including and, at the same time, erasing the infidel, for it was Christianity that defined the cultural boundaries of the West. In this way, in an almost embryonic ‘Orientalistic’ fashion, crusader society subordinated the East; indeed, it turned it into a part of the West.76 Although I generally agree with Menache’s analysis of Fulcher’s strategy of ‘inverted inclusion’, I would argue that this strategy only aimed at the territory, not the people who already lived in it. More importantly, this strategy did not work by stressing (and creating) the otherness of the territory and its inhabitants – which forms the main constituent of modern (Neo) Orientalism – but by stressing the Christian or biblical identity and continuity of the landscape. But the major hermeneutical challenge has still not been settled with these observations. Just because the crusaders and their Christian contemporaries may well have understood the crusades as defensive wars and as a just re-establishing of their legal ownership, we as modern historians are not obliged to sympathetically adopt their arguments. We still have to face ‘the point of origin’s uncanniness’ as the crusades – on an analytical level – were indeed expansionist wars conducted by Europeans/Westerners in a number of different theatres of war. Surely, they were not aiming at a worldwide Eurocentrification, but instead maybe (could one say) at a “Catholico-centrification” inside and outside of Western Europe with a variety of strategies like conquest, settlement, mission, expulsion, and persecution of dissenters? Focusing simply on the First Crusade and the early Latin crusade chronicles will probably not help to answer this question, but it might help to detect the specifics of medieval forms of alterity and identity constructions. 76

Sophia Menache, “When Jesus Met Mohammed in the Holy Land: Attitudes Toward the ‘Other’ in the Crusader Kingdom,” Medieval Encounters 15 (2009), 66–85, at 85.

chapter 3

Alterity and Genre: Reflections on the Construction of ‘National’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts Georg Jostkleigrewe This contribution explores medieval images of ‘national otherness’ and the influences that shaped them. It focuses on French and German examples taken from historiographical and literary sources of the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries.1 Its main interest is the study of the concrete perceptions and images of the ‘other’ that we find in our sources. The task is not only to highlight the (well-known) interdependence between identities and alterities;2 1 This contribution is based on my doctoral thesis published in 2008: Georg Jostkleigrewe, Das Bild des Anderen. Entstehung und Wirkung deutsch-französischer Fremdbilder in der volkssprachlichen Literatur und Historiographie des 12. bis 14. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 2008). It also relies on further work on the topic which I have carried out since then, cf. especially Georg Jostkleigrewe, “Rex imperator in regno suo’ – an ideology of Frenchness? Late medieval France, its political élite, and juridical discourse“, in Imagined Communities: Constructing Collective Identities in Medieval Europe, ed. Andrzej Pleszczyński (Leiden/Boston, 2018), 46–82; idem, “Terra – populus – rex: La communauté du royaume vue de dehors. Regards allemands sur la France et les Français”, in Communitas regni: la « communauté du royaume » de la fin du xe siècle au début du xive siècle (Angleterre, Écosse, France, Empire, Scandinavie), eds. Dominique Barthélemy, Isabelle Guyot-Bachy, Frédérique Lachaud, and Jean-Marie Moeglin (Paris 2020), 31–50; idem, “Dekadente Schwächlinge und karolingische Helden. Zu den Problemen einer politischen Interpretation der deutschsprachigen Adaptationen des altfranzösischen Wilhelmszyklus,“ in Das Potenzial des Epos. Die altfranzösische Chanson de Geste im europäischen Kontext, eds. Susanne Friede, Dorothea Kullmann (Heidelberg, 2012), 217–235; idem, “Parler d’ennemi national au Moyen Âge? L’instrumentalisation d’invectives anti-anglaises dans les conflits internes de la cour française, “ in Ennemi juré, ennemi naturel, ennemi héréditaire. Construction et instrumentalisation de la figure de l’ennemi. La France et ses adversaires (XIVe–XXe siècles), ed. Jörg Ulbert (Hamburg, 2011), 23–33. – Since I have not participated in the scholarly discussions about medieval and modern ‘medievalist’ constructions of otherness in transcultural constellations, as to this topic, I would refer the reader to Kristin Skottki, Christen, Muslime und der Erste Kreuzzug. Die Macht der Beschreibung in der mittelalterlichen und modernen Historiographie (Münster, 2015), as well as Kristin’s contribution to this volume. 2 For the relationship between ’identity’ and ’alterity’ and the application of these concepts to medieval perceptions of otherness cf. Volker Scior, Das Fremde und das Eigene. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremen, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von Lübeck (Berlin, 2002), here especially 10–15, 17–27; cf. ibid., 9, note 1, a survey of relevant medievalist research. Since the publication of Scior’s work, further theses have been

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_004

42

Jostkleigrewe

the particular aim of this contribution is to have a closer look at those processes which underlie the construction of concrete images of French and German otherness in medieval chronicles. Is it possible to interpret these images as part (and a result) of a coherent authorial vision of the French or German ‘otherness’ – or not? Are these images to be understood as ‘tools’ that were created to pursue specific political or historiographical goals – or not? And what is the relationship between these constructions of alterity and the historiographical and literary traditions in which they are embedded? In order to propose answers to these questions, I will first outline the ‘classic’ approach which consists in interpreting the construction of alterity as a tool in the sense defined above: Constructing otherness as a means of asserting identities, of fighting one’s enemies, and so on. I will illustrate this approach by two pertinent examples but will also highlight its problems and shortcomings. In the second part, I then discuss a different vision of how historiographical and literary perceptions of the ‘other’ emerge. A clarification must be given regarding the notion of ‘national’ otherness referred to by the title. Like some other medievalists, I would hold that in the Middle Ages we observe collective identities which share a number of common features with modern national identities.3 In this contribution, however, I will not address in detail the question of whether these medieval identities should be considered ‘national’ ones. If I refer to the construction of ‘national’ otherness in the text, this is simply to indicate that I am discussing identities and alterities on the level which we today would call national – that is, with regard to ‘France’ and ‘Germany’ and not with regard to regional, social, or religious identities within the Franco-German area.

published, which also throw light on the problem identities and alterities: David Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden. Vorstellungen und Fremdheitskategorien bei Rimbert, Thietmar von Merseburg und Helmold von Bosau (Berlin, 2005); Thomas Foerster, Vergleich und Identität. Selbst- und Fremddeutung im Norden des hochmittelalterlichen Europa (Berlin, 2009). Further insights in medieval perceptions of otherness will be produced by Isabelle Chwalka’s doctoral thesis on Anglo-German images of the other (cf. also Chwalka’s contribution to this volume). Perceptions of otherness also play a role in Andreas Bihrer, Begegnungen zwischen dem ostfränkisch-deutschen Reich und England (850–1100). Kontakte – Konstellationen – Funktionalisierungen – Wirkungen (Ostfildern, 2012). 3 On this topic, cf. more specifically Jostkleigrewe, Bild des Anderen, 38–41, with a survey of previous medievalist prises de position towards this question and ibid., “Terra – populus – rex”. Cf. also Jean-Marie Moeglin, “Nation et nationalisme du Moyen Age à l’époque moderne (France/Allemagne),” Revue historique 301 (1999), 537–553; ibid., “Die historiographische Konstruktion der Nation – ‘französische Nation’ und ‘deutsche Nation’ im Vergleich,” in Deutschland und der Westen Europas, ed. Joachim Ehlers (Stuttgart, 2002), 353–377.

‘ National ’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts

1

43

The ‘Classic’ Approach: Constructing Otherness as a Narrative and/or Political Tool

1.1 German Comments on ‘French Expansionism’ Up to now, the dominant approach to the perception of French and German ‘otherness’ in historiographical and literary texts has consisted of interpreting them as the result of conscious authorial constructions and as parts of a coherent historical vision. This approach seems well adapted to the study of a number of examples. For instance, from the end of the 13th century onwards, German authors regularly denounce the aggressive policy of the French king towards the border regions of the Roman Empire. To quote but one example: Probably in 1339, Rudolf Losse, counsellor to the elector-archbishop of Treves, exhorts the emperor Louis the Bavarian to honor his alliance with the king of England and go to war with France. In this view, attacking the French king would be fully justified (and probably successful) because of the notoriety of the injuries inflicted by the latter on the Empire. These injuries are later on specified as the “occupation” or usurpation of imperial possessions and rights, as well as the violent “oppression” of imperial vassals in the border region.4 Well into the 20th century, German historians interpreted such documents as evidence for French aggressions on the imperial border. In his 1910 habilitation thesis, the German historian Fritz Kern concentrated on the medieval “beginnings of French expansionism”;5 his work remained influential well beyond the nationalist period before World War I and the Entre-deux-guerres.6 4 Rudolf Losse, Memorandum on the emperor’s war on France, ed. Edmund Stengel, Nova Alamanniae I, Nr. 581, 389sq.: “[Non] est imperatori propter paucitatem sue gentis diffidendum, cum nonnumquam multi per paucos victi legantur, tum propter imperii iustitiam et regis Francie iniurias notorie imperio irrogatas, tum eciam, quia imperii statum et potentiam naciones singule pertimescunt. […] Item ad victoriam imperatoris faciunt iniurie per ..reges Francie diversimode perpetrate et primo occupacio bonorum et iurium imperii notoria. Item singulorum tam in regno quam in imperio sibi vicinorum oppressio violenta”. 5 Fritz Kern, Anfänge der französischen Ausdehnungspolitik bis zum Jahr 1308 (Tübingen, 1910). In this work, Kern identifies the French ‘lust for expansion’ as an important (and sometimes dominant) element of 600 years of European politics, cf. ibid., p. V: “Der Trieb Frankreichs, seine Grenzen zu erweitern, war während mindestens sechs Jahrhunderten ein Bruchteil der europäischen Politik und mehrmals ihre Dominante“. 6 For a survey of French and German research on French ’expansionism’ cf. Jean-Marie Moeglin, “La frontière comme enjeu politique à la fin du XIIIe siècle. Une description de la frontière du Regnum et de l’Imperium au début des années 1280,“ in Faktum und Konstrukt. Politische Grenzen im europäischen Mittelalter: Verdichtung – Symbolisierung – Reflexion, eds. Nils Bock, Georg Jostkleigrewe, Bastian Walter (Münster, 2011), 203–220, especially 203 sq., note 2; Georg Jostkleigrewe, “Entre pratique locale et théorie politique: Consolidation du pouvoir, annexion et déplacement des frontières en France (début XIV e siècle). Le cas du

44

Jostkleigrewe

In recent times, however, Jean-Marie Moeglin has argued convincingly that the French ‘annexationism’ denounced first by medieval contemporaries and then by modern historians is little more than a fiction: in fact, the Franco-imperial border remained astonishingly stable until the end of the 15th century. Except for some debatable cases –e.g., the annexation of the city of Lyons or the integration of the so-called ‘Barrois mouvant’ into the vassalitic structure of the kingdom – the French kings made little effort to alter the boundaries of their kingdom.7 Why then do we have all these complaints? The answer is: local conflict. All along the Franco-imperial border, there was a multitude of local parties which struggled for petty possessions on either side of the border. In order to fight their local enemies, they tried to obtain every possible support – from French officials, from French and imperial magnates, and sometimes from the emperor himself. Denouncing French aggression was a very pragmatic action in this context: It was a political tool that you used if you had not managed to get French help – and when you needed imperial support against those of your enemies who, unlike you, had gotten French help.8 Lyonnais et des frontières méditerranéennes,“ in Annexer? Les déplacements de frontières à la fin du Moyen Âge, eds. Stéphane Péquignot/Pierre Savy (Rennes, 2016), 75–96, especially 75–77. – Only recently, Kern’s work has aroused the interest of French researchers working on the Franco-imperial border in the Lyonnais, cf. Alexis Charansonnet, “Sources administratives et négociation. Les tractations du roi, du pape et de l’archevêque concernant le rattachement de Lyon à la France (1311–1312),“ Francia 39 (2012), 439–471, especially 439, note 2: “Disons-le tout net, les historiens de Lyon […] semblent peu intéressés par la question de l’intégration au royaume capétien, comme si elle allait de soi et que l’Empire, par exemple, était devenu au tournant des xiiie–xive siècles quantité absolument négligeable. [The work of] Kienast […] et le vieil ouvrage de Fritz Kern, Die Anfänge […], peu utilisé par les historiens français, démontrent pourtant le contraire”. 7 Cf. especially Jean-Marie Moeglin, “Französische Ausdehnungspolitik am Ende des Mittelalters: Mythos oder Wirklichkeit,“ in König, Fürsten und Reich im 15. Jahrhundert, eds. F. Fuchs, P.-J. Heinig and J. Schwarz (Cologne/Weimar/Vienne, 2009), 349–374. 8 Cf. Moeglin, “Französische Ausdehnungspolitik” (cf. note 7), especially 353 (with regard to a characteristic example from the Ostrevant region): “Die Historiographie […] hat für sicher gehalten, dass die dem Grafen von Hennegau von Philipp dem Schönen aufgezwungene Mannschaft im Jahre 1290 auch auf die reine Ausdehnungslust des Königs zurückzuführen wäre. So einfach ist es wiederum nicht. Zu bemerken ist zuerst die Tatsache, dass, wie an der lothringischen Grenze, der König nicht von selbst eingreift, sondern dass man ihn zu Hilfe ruft und auf seine alten Rechte auf Osterbant aufmerksam macht. Die Affäre fängt nämlich an, als die mit dem Grafen von Hennegau zerstrittenen Mönche von Anchin den französischen König zu Hilfe rufen“. Cf. also Jostkleigrewe, “Entre pratique locale et théorie politique“, which considers the question of French expansionism with regard to French frontier regions other than the Franco-imperial border, and develops a general approach to the problem which differs slightly from Jean-Marie Moeglin’s.

‘ National ’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts

45

Despite this somewhat cynical analysis, one cannot deny that these local conflicts and complaints, well before the humanist period with its German proto-nationalism, had an impact on the emergence of a somewhat negative perception of France and the French kingdom among a certain number of German medieval chroniclers. As early as the 1290s, the Alsatian author of what is called the Ellenhardi Chronicon summarises the conflicts in Upper Burgundy – that is, the region between Basle, Montbéliard, and Besançon – as part of a secular confrontation between omnis Gallia and tota Theutunia. It is debatable whether this passage – which was highlighted in the 1980s as early evidence for the existence of a German national identity9 – is actually meant to refer to a conflict between ‘France’ and ‘Germany’. As Jean-Marie Moeglin has pointed out, it is far more probable that the chronicler intended to depict a general conflict between the germanophone and the romanophone lords in Upper Burgundy – and that he was not referring to a conflict between France and the Empire.10 Nevertheless, later medieval readers of the Ellenhardi Chronicon understood its historiographical account in exactly this way.11 For Ottokar of Styria, who writes about fifteen years later and who draws heavily on the Alsatian chronicles, the conflicts along the Lotharingian and Burgundian border form part of one great conflict between the king of France and the Empire. It is the king of 9 For a survey of the chronicles from south-western Germany which depict the border conflicts between the Empire and the kingdom of France at the end of the 13th century, cf. Bertram Resmini, Das Arelat im Kräftefeld der französischen, englischen und angiovinischen Politik nach 1250 und das Einwirken Rudolfs von Habsburg, (Köln/Wien, 1980), 116 sq. Among the relevant chronicles, cf. (apart from Ellenhardi Chronicon) especially the Annales Colmarienses maiores, 216. The German research has highlighted that the authors of these chronicles tend to interpret any conflict in the borderlands as a Franco-German or Franco-imperial conflict, cf. Rüdiger Schnell, “Deutsche Literatur und deutsches Nationsbewußtsein in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit,“ in Ansätze und Diskontinuität deutscher Nationsbildung im Mittelalter, ed. Joachim Ehlers, Nationes 8 (Sigmaringen, 1989), 247–319, here 271–2; Rolf Sprandel, “Frankreich im Spiegel der spätmittelalterlichen Historiographie Deutschlands,“ in Kultureller Austausch und Literaturgeschichte im Mittelalter, ed. Ingrid Kasten et al. (Sigmaringen, 1998), 35–45, here 37; Heinz Thomas, “Nationale Elemente in der ritterlichen Welt des Mittelalters,“ in Ansätze und Diskontinuität deutscher Nationsbildung im Mittelalter, ed. Joachim Ehlers (Sigmaringen, 1988), 345–376, at 364–5. 10 Jean-Marie Moeglin, “La Gallia entre la Francia et la Germania au cours des derniers siècles du Moyen Âge,“ in Relations, échanges, transferts en Occident au cours des derniers siècles du Moyen Âge. Hommage à Werner Paravicini, eds. Bernard Guenée/Jean-Marie Moeglin (Paris, 2010) 37–48, especially 40, note 8. 11 Moeglin, “Gallia entre Francia et Germania”, 44, acknowledges this problem caused by the polysemic character of the medio-Latin term of Gallia (which may well refer to the kingdom of France).

46

Jostkleigrewe

France who stirs up rebellions and wars inside the Empire and who strives to subjugate the imperial vassals in the border area. This, at least, is the position of Ottokar and his porte-parole, the archbishop of Treves: Ich weiz wol den ungemach,/den mir der selbe grâve tuot,/daz vert niht von sin selbes muot:/in reizet darzuo/beide spât und fruo/ der Franzoisaere her.12 [I know about the inconvenience / that the same count does to me / this does not stem from his own impulse / he is provoked to that / both early and late / by the French king.] Due to his exposed position on the imperial frontier, the archbishop of Treves seems well qualified to judge the French ambitions: Ganzer frid noch staeter suon/zwischen Franzoisen/und den helden kurtoisen,/die dâ gehôrent ze Triere,/wirt nimmer ûf der riviere/der zweier rîche gemerke:/wande mit sîner sterke/der von Francrîch und mit gâb/dem rîche hât betwungen ab/sîner liute unde lande;/daz nieman sô wol erkande,/als swer datz Triere bischolf ist,/wande er ze maniger frist/ von in schaden dulden muoz.13 [Firm and stable peace between the French and the noble warriors who owe their fidelity to Treves will never reign on the border between the two kingdoms, for the Frenchman [i. e. the French king] has used power and gift to wrench land and people from the Empire. No one knew this so well as whoever is bishop of Treves, for he often has to endure injuries from him.] Ottokar of Styria thus develops a coherent vision of the relationship between France and the Empire – a relationship marked by French ‘annexationism’, by French lust for conquest. And as the latter quotation indicates, he fits this vision into the construction of a quasi-national image of France. It is the French no less than their king who are responsible for the grievances of the imperial 12 Ottokar, Steirische Reimchronik, ed. Josef Seemüller, MGH Dt. Chroniken 5 (Hannover, 1890/1893), V. 35.214–35.219. 13 Ottokar, Steirische Reimchronik, V. 39.766–39.777. Cf. also V. 39.732–39.738: “Der bischolf von Trier,/[…]/der meinte die rehtikeit,/wand im von herzen was leit,/daz der von Francrîche/rômischem rîche/sô vil des sînen vor hât.”

‘ National ’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts

47

vassals: The king – der von Francrîch – and the French – die Franzoise – become interchangeable. The examples we have seen up to now fit very well with what I have called the ‘classic’ approach to medieval ‘national’ otherness in a Franco-German context. French ‘expansionism’ is a concept which contributes to the creation of a coherent historiographical vision of France and the French. Furthermore, this concept is often made use of in a purposeful manner as a political tool during local border conflicts. Therefore, the ‘classic’ approach is certainly not wrong in and of itself and is an approach that is helpful for understanding a number of German documents – and it would not be a surprise that there are comparable findings in French chronicles as well. I will briefly comment on one historiographical example which also focuses on the relationship between France and the Empire, though it highlights a different aspect. 1.2 The French King as ‘Emperor in His Kingdom’ During the 13th century, jurists from within and outside France had developed the theory that the king of France was exempt from the Roman emperor’s imperium mundi – indeed, that he was emperor in his kingdom. In a few French chronicles, this theory is made use of to explain the – political – relationship between France and the Empire. The most famous example is certainly the description of what is called the ‘state-visit’ of the emperor, Charles IV, to France in the Chronique des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V, a continuation appended to the Grandes Chroniques de France.14 According to this chronicle, the emperor’s visit was staged as an illustration of the theory of rex imperator in regno suo. This does not mean that Charles of Luxembourg was not welcomed in a most friendly manner when he came to France in 1378: The emperor was a close relative of the French king, and the house of Luxembourg had been a rather reliable ally of the French kingdom for many years. However, Charles was not allowed to perform any ritual of dominancy inside France; this point is made very clear by the chronicler who occupied a more or less official position as royal historiographer at the court of the French king, Charles V.15 14 For the description of Charles’ visit to Paris cf. Chronique des règnes de Jean II et de Charles, ed. Roland Delachenal, 3 vol. (Paris, 1910–1920), here vol. 2, 193–277. For a comprehensive survey of the relevant scholarship, I refer to my latest article on the topic: Georg Jostkleigrewe, “Rex imperator in regno suo“, especially 62, 66 sq., note 36 sq. 15 Concerning the authorship of Pierre d’Orgemont and his biography cf. Françoise Vieilliard, “Orgemont, Pierre d’,“ in Lexikon des Mittelalters 6, col. 1452 sq.; with regard to the specific partiality of Pierre’s chronicle cf. Georg Jostkleigrewe, Monarchischer Staat und ‘Société politique‘. Politische Interaktion und staatliche Verdichtung im spätmittelalterlichen Frankreich, Mittelalter-Forschungen 56 (Ostfildern, 2018) especially 338.

48

Jostkleigrewe

The emperor was particularly forbidden to enter Paris on a white horse – an act which was interpreted as a sign of sovereign rulership. For his reception in Paris, he was therefore asked to mount a horse of dark color while the French king entered his capital on a white horse. In the illuminated manuscript written for the king of France, the reception of Charles of Luxembourg is portrayed accordingly: The emperor and his son, king Wenceslas, sitting on horses of dark color, accompany the French king who sits astride a white horse. The French king occupies the place of highest honor – in front of and between his two guests.16 This description of Emperor Charles’ visit to Paris has been an enormous success principally among modern scholars. Most of them conceive of the relationship between France and the Empire in terms of “rex imperator”; they hardly ever neglect to refer to Charles sojourn in Paris as evidence.17 Among medieval contemporaries, however, the rex imperator-theme played a less important role, as Chris Jones and I have shown in several publications: The concept is virtually absent from the vast majority of chronicles which comment on the relationship between France and the Empire.18 Why do I nevertheless refer to this quite exceptional representation? The reason is twofold: On the one hand, the historiographical description of Charles’ visit to Paris is a striking example of a narrative which endeavors to fit the perception of the ‘other’ into a systematic construction of political identity and alterity – a legal one, in this case. On the other hand, the scholarly interest in rex imperator is paradigmatic for the shortcomings of the ‘classic’ approach concentrating on coherent and conscious authorial constructions of identities and alterities – regardless of the fact that the respective constructions represent only a small portion of the historiographical material. In fact, most medieval images of the French or German other do not conform to a conscious and 16

Cf. BnF, Ms. français 2813, fol. 470v.; see also: František Šmahel, The Parisian Summit, 1377– 78: Emperor Charles IV and King Charles V of France (Chicago, 2014). 17 Cf., e.g., the companion by Jean-Marie Carbasse and Guillaume Leyte, L’État royal (Paris, 2004), especially 19–33, 40–47, which comments on the role of rex imperator as one of the juridical bases of – medieval and modern – French sovereignty; the authors also edit an extract from Théodore Godefroi’s Cérémonial français which quotes the description of Charles’ IV. visit to Paris in order to illustrate the juridical model of rex imperator. 18 Cf. Chris Jones, Eclipse of Empire? Perceptions of the Western Empire and its Rulers in Late-Medieval France (Turnhout, 2007), especially 223: “French jurist generally came to agree upon the principle […] rex Francie in regno suo princeps est, a tag which became a staple of legal circles, though there is little to suggest it enjoyed more popular diffusion before the mid-fourteenth century. It is, for example, notably absent from chronicles written before 1350”; Jostkleigrewe, Bild des Anderen, 276–315, especially 308–314; ibid., “Rex imperator in regno suo“.

‘ National ’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts

49

systematic vision of identity and alterity, but instead were influenced by other factors – one of which will be discussed in the second part of this contribution. 2

Alterity and ‘Genre’. The Impact of Tradition on the Perception of the Other

2.1 France, Universal History and the Empire The focus of this second part is on the interdependencies between historiographical constructions of identity and alterity, on the one hand, and ‘genre’ traditions on the other. How are we to understand the relationship between historiographical ‘genre’ and the construction of ‘national’ otherness? Those scholars who follow the ‘classic’ approach outlined above tend to present this question in terms of a problem to be solved by the chronicler. In other words: The chronicler is expected to adapt the historiographical tradition – forming the framework within which he works– into a systematic vision of identity and alterity (such as those described above). To illustrate this problem, I will look to French universal chronicles and their impact on French perceptions of the Empire. In this connection, we will once more touch on the thorny question of rex imperator and its supposed impact on historiography. At a first glance, the notion of French universal chronicles seems a contradictio in adiecto – a contradiction in terms. Medieval universal chronicles tell the story of the world’s four universal monarchies – generally the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. The final parts of these chronicles treat the history of the contemporary Roman Empire – i. e., the history of the German rulers, thus highlighting the universalistic vocation of their Roman emperorship. French chronicles, in contrast, focus not only on the history of the French kings but are generally said to highlight the specific and independent role of their most noble kingdom inside Christendom. It has been asked how those French historiographers who wrote a universal chronicle coped with this apparent tension between the traditional orientation of the genre and the implications of their own, specifically French vision of history. A most significant representative of this approach is Mireille Chazan, professor emeritus at Metz, who has done substantial research on the perception of the Empire in French universal chronicles.19 In particular, 19 Mireille Chazan, “Aubri de Trois-Fontaines, un historien entre la France et l’Empire,“ Annales de l’est 36 (1984), 163–192; ibid., “L’Idée d’Empire dans le Memoriale historiarum de Jean de Saint-Victor,“ L’historiographie médiévale en Europe, ed. Jean-Philippe Genet (Paris, 1991), 301–319; ibid., “Guillaume de Nangis et la translation de l’empire aux rois

50

Jostkleigrewe

Professor Chazan has analysed a set of eight continuations of the universal chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux, the second redaction of which covers the period up to 1111.20 Sigebert was a Lotharingian monk and a supporter of the Salian emperors in their conflict with the Gregorian popes. According to Chazan, the French chroniclers who wrote continuations for Sigebert’s works developed different strategies for coping with the universalistic aspirations of their model. One strategy consisted in claiming that the contemporary French kings were the true heirs of the universal emperors. They – and not the Romano-German rulers – perform the foremost tasks of the emperors – such as the protection of the Church and the leadership of the crusade movement. If Chazan is right, this is the strategy adopted by William of Nangis; William is one of the most important French historiographers of the late 13th century, and his works have been made use of for the constitution of what would afterwards be known as the Grandes Chroniques de France.21 Another strategy consisted in claiming that the universal empire had come to an end and that the world had returned to a state of independent kingdoms. This is the vision of John of Saint-Victor22 – a vision which is not equivalent to, but compatible with the jurist’s concept of rex imperator. As has perhaps become clear, I do not agree in every detail with Mireille Chazan; nor do other researchers. Chris Jones has shown, for instance, that the idea of a universal empire does not at all disappear from late medieval French chronicles,23 as Chazan’s position would at least suggest. Of course, Chazan’s de France,“ in Saint-Denis et la royauté. Études offertes à Bernard Guenée, eds. Françoise Autrand, Claude Gauvard, and Jean-Marie Moeglin (Paris, 1999), 463–480; ibid., “La nécessité de l’Empire de Sigebert de Gembloux à Jean de Saint-Victor,“ Le Moyen Age 16 (2000/1), 9–36. 20 Cf. Mireille Chazan, L’Empire et l’histoire universelle de Sigebert de Gembloux à Jean de Saint-Victor (XIIe–XIV e siècle) (Paris, 1999). 21 Cf. in particular, Chazan, “Guillaume de Nangis et la translation de l’empire aux rois de France“. 22 Cf. in particular, Chazan, “L’Idée d’Empire dans le Memoriale historiarum de Jean de Saint-Victor“. – For John of Saint-Victor, cf. especially Isabelle Guyot-Bachy, Le ‘Memoriale historiarum’ de Jean de Saint-Victor: un historien et sa communauté au début du XIVe siècle (Turnhout, 2000); for his vision of universal history (and the role of the Empire therein), cf. especially John of Saint-Victor, Traité de la division des royaumes, introduction à une histoire universelle, eds. Isabelle Guyot Bachy/Dominique Poirel (Turnhout, 2002). 23 Cf. the carefully balanced conclusion of Jones, Eclipse of Empire?, 353–362, especially 362: “The eclipse of Empire in the late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth centuries is indeed a reality, but one largely restricted to the minds of modern historians. The inhabitants of France could conceive of a world in which the emperor no longer exercised universal temporal jurisdiction and the Roman Empire was no longer an institution associated with universal government. Indeed, they had conceived of such a world long before Aristotle’s

‘ National ’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts

51

approach is not wrong in itself: The question of how historiographical ‘genres’ are influenced or even transformed by authorial constructions of identity and alterity is certainly a pertinent one – and one that must be asked. What is to be criticised, however, is that Chazan does not put the question the other way around – that she never asks how the tradition of universal chronicles has influenced the French perception of the Empire. What can we learn if we adopt this inverted perspective – what then is the impact of genre traditions on identities and alterities? The French Perception of the Empire – A Historiographical By-Product? If we compare French and German chronicles, we observe that a great portion of news about the respective neighbor appears in the context of imperial (or: emperors’) history.24 As far as German chronicles are concerned, this is not astonishing: France or the French are mentioned because the German ruler meets the French king, sends ambassadors to the pope who has fled to France and so on. With regard to French chronicles, this same observation is somewhat more astonishing: A good deal of French chroniclers’ news on the Empire is presented without any link whatsoever to French history. In the Grandes Chroniques de France, for instance, we find a number of passages which relate events that have occurred in the Empire and which are explicitly marked as “incidences” – as news that is important but does not belong to the main subject of the chronicle, which is the history of the French kings.25 2.2

Politics was read in the schools. Yet a form of universal temporal authority associated with the Roman emperor remained fundamental to the existence of a properly ordered Christian society. […] As a consequence of the long vacancy that took place after the death of Frederick II it was certainly possible to imagine the world without an emperor, but such a world was, from a French perspective, hardly the best of all possible worlds.”; Jones, ibid., and 238–257, even highlights the fact that Jean Quidort of Paris – who has long been considered a milestone of political thinking on the disappearance of Universal Empire – keeps a notion of necessary universal temporal authority linked to the Roman emperor; on this topic, cf. also ibid., “Diener zweier Herren? Jean Quidort und das Problem der königlichen Autorität,“ Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte 19 (2016), 153–187. 24 Cf. Jostkleigrewe, Bild des Anderen, 63–84, with a detailed survey of the quantitative structures which mark the perception of the ‘national’ other in Francophone and Germanophone chronicles. 25 Cf. Jostkleigrewe, Bild des Anderen, 80 sq., on the importance of the ‘universal history’ context for the perception of the Empire in French chronicles such as the Grandes Chroniques de France; my findings are in patent opposition to opinions such as those presented by Albert Gier, s. v., “Institutionen und Legitimität im Spätmittelalter,“ in Grundriß der Romanischen Literaturen des Mittelalters, ed. Jean Frappier, vol. 11/1 (Heidelberg, 1987), 835–868, at 843: “Der Blick des Autors [der Grandes Chroniques de France] richtet sich

52

Jostkleigrewe

I would link this observation to the importance of universal chronicles in France. Because universal chronicles with their focus on the Empire form a relevant part of French historiographical writing, imperial history forms an equally relevant part in French historical thought – and this tendency influences even those works that originally focus on French (and not on universal) history. In other words: If French chronicles show a definite interest in imperial history, this is not because the French themselves are specifically interested in the Empire (they are rather not, I would say); it is the effect of a specific historiographical constellation. Moreover, this constellation may be one of the reasons why we sometimes find astonishingly ‘ghibelline’ remarks in French chronicles. One example concerns the conflict between Manfred of Sicily and Charles of Anjou – the latter being the brother of the French king and ally of the popes and the one who chases the Hohenstaufen out of Sicily. In his account of Charles’ wars in Italy, the French chronicler William of Nangis comments on the enmity between the citizens of Milan (who supported actually Charles!) and the Hohenstaufen – and yet the Milanese hatred is explicitly qualified as unjust, as iniquum odium. A later French translation even uses the wording of tres felonesse haine – of most treasonous hate.26 It is noticeable that this ‘ghibelline’ perception of imperial history had an impact on French authors outside the historiographical arena. One striking example is the lawbook of Philip of Beaumanoir. Philip was a royal bailiff and composed a famous compendium of the customary laws of his French homeland, Clermont-en-Beauvaisis. In this work, he refers to the story of the conflicts between the Hohenstaufen and the Lombard league – which he observes from an imperial point of view! The insurrection of Milan along with its Lombard allies is a treacherous act against the emperor, their lawful overlord. Philip ausschließlich auf die Geschichte Frankreichs; und er verfolgt in erster Linie den Weg seiner Könige; Ereignisse in anderen Ländern werden nur erwähnt, wenn sie in irgendeiner Hinsicht für die französische Geschichte bedeutsam sind.“ 26 Cf. Guillaume de Nangis, Vita Ludovici IX., MGH SS 26, 646: “Electus ad regnum Sicilie Karolus […] misit Philippum de Monte-forti […] cum sufficienti numero armatorum, ut viam Romipedearum, quam idem Poilevoisinus [sc. Alberto Pallavicini] obstruxerat, expediret et eum cum suis urbibus expugnaret. Qui cum adiutorio […] marchisii de Monte-ferrato, et civium Mediolanensium, qui partem ecclesie fovebant et omne genus antiqui Federici, eo quod eos olim destruxerat et tres magos Colonie abstulerat, iniquo odio persequebantur, eos viriliter debellavit et negocium (….) cum adiutorio Dei satis laudabiliter expedivit.“ Cf. ibid. the 14th century French translation of Primat’s lost chronicle used by Guillaume de Nangis : “[…] ceulz de la cite de Melen – qui soustenoient la part de l’eglise, et avoient en tres felonnesse haïne tout le lignage de l’anciën Federic, pour ce qu’il les avoit destruiz et oste leur les trois roys de Couloigne […]”.

‘ National ’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts

53

then uses the story to explain why lords of every rank should severely punish those who foment treason.27 The traditional interest in imperial history may furthermore explain why most French historiographers observe the contemporary empire with not at all unfriendly eyes. At the very moment when John of Saint-Victor reflects on the disappearance of the Empire, another Parisian chronicler begs God to help Henry of Luxemburg in restoring imperial order: God help him (…) [and] guide him in a way that ensures the well-being of the Church, and support him in his wars so that peace may reign on earth.28 27 Cf. Philip of Beaumanoir, Coûtumes de Beauvaisis, ed. Amédée Salmon, 2 vol. (Paris, 1899/1900), here vol. 1, 448–50,  §§ 885–6: “Une autre maniere d’aliances ont esté fetes mout de fois par lesqueles maintes viles ont esté destruites et maint seigneur honi et desherité, si comme quant li communs d’aucune vile ou de pluseurs viles font aliances contre leur seigneur en aus tenant a force contre li […]. [§ 886] Pour donner essample as seigneurs qu’il se prengnent pres de punir et de vengier teus aliances […], je vous conterai que il en avint en Lombardie. – Il fu que toutes les bonnes viles et li chastel de Lombardie furent a l’empereeur de Rome en son demaine ou tenues de lui, et avoit ses baillis, ses prevos et ses serjans par toutes les viles qui justiçoient et gardoient les drois l’empereeur, et avoient esté par devant tuit li Lombart mout obeïssant a l’empereeur comme a leur seigneur. Or avint qu’en l’une des bonnes viles avoit .iii. riches Lombars a qui li baillis n’avoit pas fet leur volentés, ains avoit fet pendre un leur parent pour sa deserte par droit de justice. Li Lombart en furent meu par mauvese cause et pourchacierent malicieusement un homme soutil, malicieus et bien parlant. Cil […] ala par toutes les bonnes viles de Lombardie ; et, quant il venoit en une vile, il enqueroit .x. ou .xii. des plus fors de lignage et d’avoir et puis parloit a chascun a par soi, et leur disoit que les autres bonnes viles s’estoient acordees priveement qu’eles ne vouloient plus estre en obeïssance de seigneur et que la vile qui ne s’i acorderoit seroit destruite par les autres bonnes viles, et seroit chascune bonne vile dame de soi sans tenir d’autrui. Tant fist et tant pourchaça cil messages […] que […] en un seul jour et en une eure toutes les viles de Lombardie coururent sus a ceus qui estoient a l’empereeur et les pristrent comme ceus qui ne s’en donnoient garde. Et quant il les eurent pris, il leur couperent les testes a tous et puis establirent en leur viles teus lois et teus coustumes comme il leur pleut, ne onques puis ne trouverent empereeur qui cel fet venjast ne adreçast. Et par ce poués vous entendre que c’est grans perius a tous seigneurs de soufrir teus aliances entre ses sougiès, ains doivent tous jours courre au devant si tost comme il s’en pueent apercevoir et fere venjance selonc le mesfet si comme j’ai dit dessus”. 28 Cf. Chronique métrique attribué à Geffroy de Paris, ed. Armand Diverrès (Strasbourg, 1956), v. 3683–3706: “En cele annee ainsi avint/Que l’apostoille Clyment Quint/Fist et crea empereeur/D’un riche et noble poingneeur/Qui conte de Lucebourc fu/Et roy d’Alemaingne refu/[…]/Et por le droit de son empire/mist soi et son cors a martire;/Et combien qu’assez i ait mis/Et perdu de ses chiers amis,/Touzjors persevere et guerroie./Dex l’aïde! si ne s’esmoie./Or le tiengne Diex en tel guise/Que le meillor en ait l’Yglise,/Et ainssi

54

Jostkleigrewe

Some years later, the author of the so-called Manuel d’histoire de Philippe de Valois mourns Henry’s untimely death, for this emperor, “if he had lived, would have restored the cause of the Empire.”29 A brief comment on these last quotations: I do not pretend that their authors are specifically interested in drawing a positive image of the Empire and the emperors. They refer to imperial history, because imperial history forms an integral element of their own historiographical tradition. If they seem to comment in a friendly way on the Empire, this is less because they are imbued with ‘ghibelline’ feelings, but because they are presenting it ‘the normal way’ – they accept the empire as they would accept any kind of legitimate rule unless it were to transgress its traditional limits and boundaries. Frenchman or German – Charlemagne as an Indicator of National Consciousness? Before concluding, I would briefly present a last example which once again highlights the issues that are at stake when we underestimate the impact of historiographical and literary traditions on the perception of the French or German ‘other’. The example concerns how nationality was ascribed to Charlemagne by the Latin and vernacular writers from medieval Germany. As is well known, Charlemagne is claimed as a German in some Latin texts from the 12th century onwards. In German vernacular texts, however, the Frankish emperor is considered a Frenchman until the end of the 14th century. Rüdiger Schnell, philologist and professor for Medieval German Literature, has interpreted these findings as a “discrepancy between Latin partisanship and vernacular indifference” which forces us to assume that the development of national consciousness was delayed among the vernacular authors who were less well educated than the ‘Latin’ intellectuals.30 2.3

maintenir sa guerre/Que pais en puist venir en terre”. – On Geffroi de Paris, cf. also Jones, Eclipse of Empire, especially 361. 29 Manuel d’histoire de Philippe de Valois, ed. Gaston Raynaud/Henri Lemaître, Le Roman de Renart le Contrefait 1 (Paris, 1914 repr. Geneva, 1975), 293: “En celle année, morut le glorïeux empereur Henry, la mort du quel fut moult plainte par toute crestïenté; car on tenoit que s’il eült vescu son droit eage, il eust ramené la chose de l’Empire en bon estat.”; – The Manuel d’histoire – a universal chronicle in French prose based on Bernard Gui’s work – is not fully edited; most of it has been inserted in Renart le Contrefait and edited with this work. 30 Cf. Schnell, “Deutsche Literatur und deutsches Nationsbewußtsein,” 317: “Die […] deutlich sichtbare Diskrepanz zwischen lateinischer engagierter Parteinahme und volkssprachlicher Gleichgültigkeit zwingt zur Annahme von thematisch unterschiedlichen Kristallisationszentren des Nationsbewußtseins bei verschiedenen Bevölkerungsgruppen

‘ National ’ Otherness in Franco-German Contexts

55

In view of such opinions, I would maintain to the contrary that the ‘French’ Charlemagne we encounter in germanophone texts has little to do with the question of national consciousness. It is just another example of the influence of ‘genre’ traditions. In fact, the presentation of Carolingian history in German vernacular texts relies to some extent on translations of Old French ‘Chansons de geste’ – and in these French epics, Charlemagne is presented as a Frenchman. The fact that some 15th century vernacular authors break with this tradition and begin to claim Charlemagne as a German may be interpreted as an indicator for the intensification of national ideologies. On the other hand, the mere fact that their predecessors stick to the tradition should not imprudently be understood as evidence for anything whatever – except for the fact that these authors stick to the tradition.31 3

Conclusion

The conscious construction of ‘national’ otherness – i.e., the development of a coherent vision of ‘national’ otherness in its relationship to one’s own identity-group – is indeed a phenomenon we observe in our sources; in the first part of this contribution, I have presented two relevant examples. Yet, the conscious construction of otherness is only one factor which influences the historiographical perception of foreign groups and peoples in the Middle Ages. In the Franco-German case, many traits which mark the image of the respective neighbour have emerged in an unintentional way; they represent not uncommonly a by-product of literary or historiographical traditions. Historical research has mostly concentrated on those conscious and coherent constructions which fit into greater systems: Scholars have focused on those authors, for instance, who adhere to the rex imperator-theory and perceive a fundamental rivalry between France and the Empire – but not attended to those texts which present the Empire as a rather normal and inoffensive political entity. Research has focused on those exceptional authors who claim Charlemagne as a German – but not on those texts which portray the undoubted founding father of the Romano-German Empire as also a noble Frenchman. The problem is that the exceptional (and more interesting) constructions which postulate a systematic rivalry between the French and German

31

und zur Annahme von soziologisch-bildungsmäßig bedingten Phasenverschiebungen in der Entwicklung des Nationsbewußtseins innerhalb einer und derselben Nation.” Cf. on this topic my doctoral thesis: Jostkleigrewe, Bild des Anderen, especially 157–170.

56

Jostkleigrewe

neighbors probably had a much smaller impact on medieval perceptions than the unsystematic and inconspicuous presentations which have been discussed in the second part of this contribution. We must therefore be cautious and should endeavor not to confuse the priorities of medievalist research on the one hand, and the characteristics of the mutual perception of medieval French and Germans on the other. It could be that our vision of the complex interplay between medieval identities and alterities is at least partly created by the specific presuppositions on identities and alterities which mark modern research – and modern research only.

chapter 4

England – No Interest? How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire in the Twelfth Century Isabelle Chwalka 1

Introduction

When analyzing Anglo-Norman and Angevin chronicles and annals from the 12th and early 13th centuries with regard to their comments about the Holy Roman Empire, it is possible to find abundant narrations about the German investiture controversy and the influence of the Empire on the Alexandrine Schism. Yet while Anglo-Norman and Angevin historians were well informed about developments in the Empire through many sources and they showed a critical perception of the Empire, it is astonishing that the headline ultimately reads “No interest?”. Given this ostensible contradiction this article will reconsider the motives as to why Anglo-Norman and Angevin historians wrote about these events and will consider their causae scribendi. It will show that the Holy Roman Empire was hardly important at all for English historians and any interest they had was caused by the implications the Empire had for the church and the popes. Pursuing an interest in perceptions and concepts about ‘others’ in the 12th century, it is possible to find abundant narrations about these in Anglo-Norman/ Angevin and German historiography.1 Analyzing 28 Anglo-Norman/Angevin chronicles and annals from 22 different authors from the 12th century, it is 1 This paper originated from my (soon to be published) Ph.D.-Thesis “Fremd- und Selbstwahrnehmung in der deutschen und anglonormannisch-angevinischen Historio­ graphie des 12. Jahrhunderts“, supervised by Prof. Dr. Ludger Körntgen, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, submitted in August 2018. The doctoral work was focused on comparatively analyzing the view of Anglo-Norman / Angevin historians towards the Reich and the view of German authors towards 12th century England. It examined the influence of political, social and cultural constellations on the historians, their view(s) about ‘others’ and the interdependency between conceptions and perceptions. The results of this present paper are based on the research for the chapters “4.1 Die Wahrnehmung des Romzugs Heinrichs V im Rahmen des Investiturstreits” and “ 4.2 Die Wahrnehmung des Alexandrinischen Schismas im Angevinischen Reich“.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_005

58

Chwalka

possible to determine text passages about the Reich in 27 of them.2 In just two of them there is only one entry about 12th century Germany, in 13 of them there are two to nine text passages, and in 12 chronicles there are more than 10 entries.3 For comparison – in 36 analyzed chronicles and annals from 2 The only one of the 28 analysed sources without any such passages is the Gesta Stephani regis Anglorum et ducis Normannorum, ed. Kenneth R. Potter (London, 1955). 3 One entry: Richard of Hexham, De gestis regis Stephani et de bello Standardii, ed. Richard Howlett, Richard, Prior of Hexham (AD 1135 to AD 1139), Chronicle, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I., Rolls Series 82,3 (London, 1886, repr. 1964); Annales Plymptonienses, ed. Felix Liebermann, Ungedruckte Anglo-Normanische Geschichtsquellen (Strasbourg, 1879), 25–30; Two to nine entries: Eadmer of Canterbury, Historia novorum, ed. Martin Rule, Eadmeri Historia novorum in Anglia, et opuscula duo de vita Sancto Anselmi et quibusdam miraculis eius (London, 1884, repr. 1965); Coventry Chronicle, ed. Paul Antony Hayward, Medieval and Rennaissance Texts and Studies 373 (Tempe, 2010); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Roger A.B. Mynors, Gesta Regum Anglorum. The History of the English Kings (Oxford, 1998–1999); William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, ed. Edmund King and Kenneth R. Potter, Historia Novella. The Contemporary History (Oxford, 1998); Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. Diana Greenway, Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum. The History of the English People (Oxford, 1996); Robert of Torigni, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. Elisabeth van Houts, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni (Oxford, 1992/1995); Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta regum Britanniae, ed. William Stubbs, The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, Rolls Series 73 (London, 1879, repr. 1965); Ralph de Diceto, Abbrevationes chronicorum, ed. William Stubbs, Radulfi de Diceto decani Lundoniensis opera historica. The historical works of master Ralph de Diceto, dean of London, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876, repr. 1965); Richard of Devizes, Cronicon de tempore regis Richardi primi, ed. John T. Appleby, The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First (London, 1963); Ralph Niger, Chroncia Anglica (Chronica II), ed. Robert Anstruther, Radulfi Nigri Chronica. The Chronicles of Ralph Niger. Publications of the Caxton Society (London, 1851, repr. 1967). More than ten entries: John of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Reginal R. Darlington and Patrick McGurk (Oxford, 2004–2007); Winchcombe Chronicle, ed. Paul Antony Hayward, Medieval and Rennaissance Texts and Studies 373 (Tempe, 2010); Symeon of Durham, Historia regum, ed. Thomas Arnold, Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, Rolls Series 75 (London, 1882–1885, repr. 1965); Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Elisabeth van Houts, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni (Oxford, 1992/1995); Robert of Torigni, Chronicle, ed. Richard Howlett, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I., Rolls Series 82/4 (London, 1890, repr. 1964); Roger of Howden, Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis, ed. William Stubbs, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867); Roger of Howden, Chronica, ed. William Stubbs, Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1868–1871); Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, ed. William Stubbs, The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, Rolls Series 73 (London, 1879, repr. 1965); Walter Map, De nugis curialium, ed. Montague R. James (Oxford, 1983); Annales Lewenses, ed. Felix Liebermann, “The Annals of Lewes Priory,” The English Historical Review 17 (1902), 83–89; Annals of St. Osyth’s, ed. Henry R. Luard, Annales Monastici 4. Annales Monasterii de Oseneia (AD 1016–1347), Chronicon vulgo dictum Chronicon Thomae Wykes (AD 1066–1289), Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (AD 1–1377), Rolls Series 36 (London, 1869, repr. 1965); Ralph de Diceto,

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

59

within the Empire itself, ten of them do not mention England at all, and in eight of them there is only one entry, and two to nine text passages are found in 15 chronicles and annals. More than ten text passages are to be found only in two of them.4 This broad statistical analysis is the basis for the quantitative Ymagines historiarum, ed. William Stubbs, Radulfi de Diceto decani Lundoniensis opera historica. The historical works of master Ralph de Diceto, dean of London, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876, repr. 1965); William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum, ed. Richard Howlett, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I., Rolls Series 82,1–2/4 (London, 1884–1885); Ralph Niger, Chronica Universalis (Chronica I), ed. Hanna Kraue, Radulfus Niger, Chronica. Eine englische Weltchronik des 12. Jahrhunderts, Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe III: Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 265 (Frankfurt a. M. 1985); Ralph de Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Joseph Stevenson, Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, Rolls Series 66 (London, 1875, repr. 1965). 4 Those without entries: Isingrim of Ottobeuren, Annales Isingrimi, ed. Ludwig Weiland, MGH SS 17 (Hannover, 1861), 312–315; Annales Herbipolenses minores, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 24 (Hannover, 1879), 828–829; Annales Babenbergenses, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 10 (Hannover, 1852), 4; Annales Ratisponenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 17 (Hannover, 1861), 579–588; Annales Ensdorfenses, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 10 (Hannover, 1852), 4–8; Annales Scheftlarienses maiores, ed. Philipp Jaffé, MGH SS 17 (Hannover, 1861), 335–343; Historia Welforum Weingartensis, ed. Ludwig Weiland, MGH SS 21 (Hannover, 1869), 454–472; Annales S. Petri Erphesfurtenses breves, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia saec. XII. XIII. XIV., MGH SSrG. 42 (Hannover, 1899), 46–48; Annales S. Petri Erphesfurtenses maiores, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia saec. XII. XIII. XIV., MGH SSrG. 42 (Hannover, 1899), 49–67; Annales Brunwilarenses, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 724–728; Annales Rosenveldenses, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 99–104. One entry: Annales Herbipolenses, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 1–12; Die sogenannte Anonyme Kaiserchronik. Nach Vorarbeiten von Irene Schmale-Ott (†) und Franz-Josef Schmale (†), ed. Martina Hartmann and Ioanna Georgiou, MGH SS 33,2 (Digital edition in advance, 2016); Annales Mellicenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 9 (Hannover, 1851), 484–536; Annales Aquenses, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 24 (Hannover, 1879), 34–39; Annales Palidenses (Auctore Theodoro Monacho), ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 48–96; Annales Magdeburgenses ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 107–196; Annales S. Petri Erphesfurdenses antiqui a. 1038–1163, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia saec. XII. XIII. XIV., MGH SSrG. 42 (Hannover, 1899), 3–20; Annales Erphesfurdenses Lothariani, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, Monumenta Erphesfurtensia saec. XII. XIII. XIV., MGH SSrG. 42 (Hannover, 1899), 34–44. Two to nine entries: Annales S. Disibodi, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 17 (Hannover, 1861), 6–30; Annales Marbacenses qui dicuntur, ed. Hermann Bloch, MGH SSrG. 9 (Hannover, 1907), 1–103; Burchard of Ursberg, Chronicon, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger / Bernhard von Simson, Die Chronik des Propstes Burchard von Ursberg (Burchardi praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon), MGH SSrG. 16 (Hannover, 1916); Otto of St Blasien, Chronica, Franz-Josef Schmale, Die Chronik Ottos von St. Blasien und die Marbacher Annalen, FSGA 18a (Darmstadt, 1998); Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon universale, ed. Georg Waitz, Ekkehardi Uraugiensis Chronica, MGH SS 6 (Hannover, 1844), 1–267; Otto of Freising, Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. Adolf Hofmeister, Ottonis Episcopi Frisigensis Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, MGH SSrG. 45 (Hannover, 1912); Annales Reicherspergenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, Magni Presbyteri Annales

60

Chwalka

estimation and comparison of reciprocal perceptions in sources for assessing the significance of the remarks. With this statistical approach it is possible to combine the views of others in the sources and to ascertain characteristic patterns for distinguishing a collective awareness and a common reception of writers and their recipients. This approach is influenced by Hans-Werner Goetz, whose research about perceptions (Wahrnehmung) and conceptions (Vorstellungen) is well-rooted in the research about others.5 Historiography is well suited for research about the perception of others, because historiographers do not only write facts, but interpret the past and reveal through this their own conceptions. The question of the function of the perceptions and descriptions of others is in the foreground, whereby influences on the authors’ conceptions and the background to the writing, (e.g., political and historical occurrences or purchasers and audiences), should also be considered. “Self” and “Others” are relational categories, because one is defined through the other. 2

The Investiture Controversy

With the first statistical approach it can be determined that English 12th century historians focused especially on the occasion of the so-called Privilege from 1111, whereby Henry V captured Paschal II in St. Peter’s and forced him

Reicherspergenses, MGH SS 17 (Hannover, 1861), 443–523; Annales Admontenses, a. 1–1139, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, Annales Admuntenses, MGH SS 9 (Hannover, 1851), 570–579; Annales Admontenses, a. 1140–1250, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS 9 (Hannover, 1851), 580–593; Annales Garstenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, Continuatio Garstensis, MGH SS 9 (Hannover, 1851), 594–600; Annales Pegavienses, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 234–270; Annales Hildesheimenses, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SSrG. 8 (Hannover, 1878); Annalista Saxo Chronicle, ed. Klaus Nass, MGH SS 37 (Hannover, 2006); Annales Patherbrunnenses, ed. Paul Scheffer-Boichorst, Annales Patherbrunnenses. Eine verlorene Quellenschrift des 12. Jahrhunderts aus Bruchstücken wiederhergestellt (Innsbruck, 1870); Helmold of Bosau, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler, MGH SSrG. 32 (Hannover, 1937); Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum, ed. Johann M. Lappenberg, MGH SSrG. 14 (Hannover, 1868); Chronicon Stederburgense, ed. Georg H. Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 197–231. More than ten entries: Otto of Freising and Rahewin, Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, ed. Georg Waitz and Bernhard von Simson, Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, MGH SSrG. 46 (Hannover, 1912); Chronica regia Coloniensis, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 24 (Hannover, 1879), 1–20. 5 Hans-Werner Goetz, Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbewusstsein im hohen Mittelalter, Orbis medievalis 1, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 2008), 415.

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

61

to warrant an investiture privilege.6 These events are reported in 13 of the English chronicles. That almost half of the analyzed chronicles report these events, reveals a strong interest of 12th century historians in this occasion.7 For comparison – Henry IV’s quarrels with Gregory VII are reported in only five of the sources, the aftermaths of 1111 up to the concordat of Worms are reported in even fewer.8 These numbers confirm Hanna Vollrath’s thesis that the events of 1111 received more recognition than Canossa, because the investiture controversy had already lasted several decades, England had had its own investiture conflict, and the interactions that were inherent to it caused the connections among popes, kings, bishops and monasteries to become stronger.9 6 With his journey to Rome in 1110/11 Henry V intended to achieve not only his coronation and the pacification of Italy, but he wanted a solution for the investiture dispute. In 1111 the Empire had been in conflict with the papacy for over 30 years over the matter which is called today (simplifyingly) the investiture controversy. While England and France had already solved the problem by 1111, there was still no solution for the Empire. On the occasion of the emperor’s coronation a new effort was made. With the secret Treaty of Sutri – concluded between royal and papal representatives, but with no episcopal participation– a revolutionary attempt was made. Henry V would – from his coronation on – relinquish his participation in elections and investitures, whereas the bishops should renounce their prerogatives and finance themselves only through donations and the tenth. With the announcement of the treaty in St. Peter’s right before the coronation, a huge uproar arose among the bishops and the aristocracy. Henry V seized Paschalis II and some of the cardinals. After several weeks of being held, the pope conferred on Henry the right to investiture by ring and staff. This privilege soon came to be called “Pravileg” and in 1112 was condemned as having been forced upon the pope and therefore wrong by a synod. For introductory literature, see Bernd Schneidmüller, “1111 – Das Kaisertum Heinrichs V. als europäisches Ereignis,” Die Salier. Macht im Wandel. Begleitband zur Ausstellung im Historischen Museum der Pfalz Speyer 1, ed. Laura Heeg (Speyer, 2011), 36–45 and Carlo Servatius, “Paschalis II. (1099–1118). Studien zu seiner Person und seiner Politik,“ Päpste und Papsttum 14 (Stuttgart, 1979). The precise background for the papal proposal is still open. Both Servatius, Paschalis II., 223–233 and Stanley Chodorow, “Paschal II, Henry V, and the Origins of the Crisis of 1111,” Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. James R. Sweeney/ Stanley Chodorow (London, 1989), 3–25, at 4, presume that these ideas developed through the ideals of church reform of the past decades. 7 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis, 118–124; Winchcombe Chronicle, 516; Coventry Chronicle, 668; William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum V.420–V.426, 762–771; Symeon of Durham, Historia regum, 242–247; Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica X.1, 196–198 and XI.41, 172; Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum VIII.175, 554; Robert of Torigni, Chronicle, 92–93; Roger of Howden, Chronica, 167; Annales Lewenses, 87; Ralph de Diceto, Abbrevationes chronicorum, 239; Ralph Niger, Chronicle IV.1, 262–264; Ralph Niger, Chronica Anglica, 165. 8 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 30, 36, 38, 40, 42, 62; Symeon of Durham, Historia regum, 200, 206–207, 211, 212, 219; Roger of Howden, Chronica, 128, 132, 136, 139, 144; Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica X.1, 196; William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum III.262, 484–III.266, 492 and III.288, 520–III.290, 524. 9 Hanna Vollrath, “Sutri 1046 – Canossa 1077 – Rome 1111. Problems of Communication and the Perception of Neighbors,” European Transformations. The long Twelfth Century, ed.

62

Chwalka

In these 13 sources there is no standard account of the events of 1111.10 In six of them there is only a short entry for 1111.11 The Annales Lewenses and Henry of Huntingdon’s chronicle narrate only the capture of the pope by Henry V, while the Winchcombe and Conventry chronicles as well as Roger of Howden add that peace was made. Only with Ralph de Diceto does one learn something about the background of the capture with a hint of an investiture privilege. Reducing the story to be about the capture shows that there did not exist an interest to the investiture controversy – an interest which should have been developed in the 12th century according to Hanna Vollrath – but rather an interest in the capture of a pope by an emperor – reducing the event to a spectacular scandal. It should be noted that the wording, except in the Annales Lewenses, is very similar. These five chronicles and annals use for their source the description in John of Worcester’s Chronicon, or, like Roger of Howden, from Symeon of Durham’s chronicle. But Symeon of Durham used John of Worcester’s Chronicon for his chronicle. The other letters and resolutions Thomas F.X. Noble/ John van Engen, Notre Dame Conferences in Medieval Studies (Notre Dame, IN, 2012), 132–170, at 151, 156, 158. 10 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis, 118–124; Winchcombe Chronicle, 516; Coventry Chronicle, 668; William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum V.420–V.426, 762–771; Symeon of Durham, Historia regum, 242–247; Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica X.1, 196–198 and XI.41, 172; Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum VIII.175, 554; Robert of Torigni, Chronicle, 92–93; Roger of Howden, Chronica, 167; Annales Lewenses, 87; Ralph de Diceto, Abbrevationes chronicorum, 239; Ralph Niger, Chronicle IV.1, 262–264; Ralph Niger, Chronica Anglica, 165. 11 Winchcombe Chronicle, at 1111, 516: “Henricus imperator Romam uenit, Paschalem papam cepit et in custodiam posuit. Sed postea ad pontem uie Salarie ubi Paschalem festiuitatem celebraverunt pacem cum eo fecit”; Coventry Chronicle, at 1111, 668: “Henricus imperator Romam uenit, Paschalem papam cepit et in custodiam posuit. Sed postea ad pontem uie Salarie ubi Paschalem festiuitatem celebraverunt pacem cum eo fecit”; Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum VIII.175, 554: “Henricus filius Henrici longeui, gener scilicet tuus, rex inuictissime, cui hec scribuntur, regnauit annis decem. Hic cum filiam tuam, cum pecunia incomparabili, duxisset, Romam peciit, et ui factus est imperator. Sed quomodo ceperit papam Paschalem dicere non attinet”; Roger of Howden, Chronica, at 1111, 167: “Henricus rex Teutonicorum Romam venit, Paschalem papam cepit, et in custodiam posuit, sed postmodum ad pontem, Via Salaria, ubi Paschalem festivitatem in campo celebraverunt, pacem cum eo fecit”; Annales Lewenses, at 1111, 87: “Paschalis papa Rome captus est ab Henrico imperatore”; Ralph de Diceto, Abbrevationes chronicorum, at 1111, 239: “Henricus rex Teutonicus Romam venit, Paschalem papam in custodiam posuit, sed postmodum ad pontem Viae Salariae, ubi paschalem festivitatem in campo celebraverunt, pacem cum eo fecit. Papa vero post lectum evangelium tradidit ei in oculis omnium principum privilegium de investitura episcopatuum, vel abbatiarum, tam per anulum quam per virgam, scilicet ut regni ejus episcopis vel abbatibus libere electis investituram conferat annuli et virgae, postea vero consecrentur electi ab episcopis ad quos pertinuerint.”

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

63

inserted in John’s and Symeon’s chronicles were not copied. These six chronicles were not cursorily reported due to a lack of information, but rather they reduced the events to a focus on the scandal – the capture of a pope. There was no intense interest in the investiture conflict. The six chronicles and annals belonged to a second generation which dealt with 1111 and the investiture conflict, so there was a longer time lag. As a result of this distance to 1111, and as well to the own English investiture conflict, this particular conflict was apparently less noteworthy. The reduction to the capture shows that there did not exist an interest in the investiture controversy or privilege that was caused by their own or an English experience with the issue, but only an interest in the capture of a pope by an emperor. These six annals and chronicles are in contrast to the first-generation historians, who were engaged in a detailed way with 1111, including both the ongoing conflict as well as the previous conflict between Henry IV and Gregory VII. John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham, William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis wrote extensively about the events. To this end, they used for their narrations about the investiture conflict two sources directly or indirectly which were written in the Reich – Marianus Scotus’ (Scottus) chronicle about the investiture conflict between Henry IV and Gregory VII and the description of Henry V’s journey to Rome by David Scolasticus (Scotigena). But they did not just copy their sources but dealt intensively with them and had a critical view about their writings and opinions. Marianus Scotus, a Benedictine monk from Ireland, who lived (after several sojourns in Cologne, Fulda and Würzburg) as a recluse in Mainz, wrote a chronicle, which was brought to England by Bishop Robert of Hereford.12 William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester and Orderic Vitalis used his chronicle directly; Symeon of Durham did so indirectly by using John of Worchester’s Chronicon.13 12 Martin Brett, “John of Worcester and his contemporaries,” in The Writing of History in the Middle Ages. Essays presented to Richard William Southern, ed. Ralph H.C. Davis/ John M. Wallace Hadrill (Oxford, 1981), 101–126, at 110. There is not a standard and complete edition of Marianus Scotus’ chronicle and its different recensions. The prevalent edition is Mariani Scotti Chronicon, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 58 (Hannover, 1844), 495– 562, especially 560–562. 13 William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis refer to him in their texts. William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum III.292, 524: “Sub isto imperatore regnante floruit Marinianus Scottus, qui primo Fuldensis monachus, post apud Mogontiacum inclusus, contemptu presentis uitae gratiam futurae demerebatur. […]”; Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 2.III, 186–189: “Ioannes Wigornensis a puero monachus, natione Anglicus, moribus et eruditione uenerandus, in his quae Mariani Scotti cronicis adiecit, de rege Guillelmo et de rebus quæ sub eo uel sub filiis eius Guillelmo Rufo et Henrico usque hodie contigerunt honeste deprompsit. […] Quem prosecutus Iohannes acta fere centum

64

Chwalka

In Marianus’ chronicle there are several entries about not only Henry IV’s conflict with Gregory VII, but also his conflict with Rudolf of Rheinfelden and the opposition of the German aristocracy. Marianus’ attitude was not completely anti-Henry IV, which would be reasonable given his closeness to Siegfrid I, archbishop of Mainz, who crowned Rudolf of Rheinfelden and Hermann of Salm as anti-kings. But Gregory VII was the true and legitimate pope for him, even if most of the time he called him Hildebrand. Despite this background it is possible to understand his often-discussed entry about Canossa. Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII meet (convenientes), the emperor receives the lifting of the excommunication and the pope receives the apostolic seat from the emperor.14 This description of the Road to Canossa was often described as negligible or digressive.15 But due to Marianus’ closeness to Archbishop Siegfried his sentence about Canossa should not be neglected; even more so it was his narration of the investiture controversy up to 1082 which became important for English historiography, especially for John of Worcester, Orderic Vitalis, William of Malmesbury, as well as for the other 12th century historians. One historian who had the biggest influence on later historians in the 12th century was John of Worcester.16 John used the Marianus chronicle extensively. In doing so, he copied not only the entries about the investiture controversy, but as well Henry’s fight with the princes who opposed him. However, he adapted the Marianus chronicle to his needs, split the entries and re-arranged them. Therefore, it was possible for his readers to gain a good overview of German-related topics. Although he copied Marianus’ entries quite meticulously, it became apparent – even if he did not explain the context – that he annorum contexuit, iussuque uenerabilis Wlfstani pontificis et monachi supradictis cronicis inseruit in quibus multa de Romanis et Francis et Alemannis aliisque gentibus quae agnouit […]”. Orderic shows with this sentence that John of Worcester used Marianus’ chronicle directly. 14 Marianus Scotus, Chronicon, to 1078, 561: “Heinricus ergo rex et Illibrandus papa convenientes mense Martio in Langobardia, rex a papa solutuionem banni, papa vero sedem apostolicam a rege accepit”. 15 Very critical of Marianus’ description are Rudolf Schieffer, “Worms, Rom und Canossa (1076/1077) in zeitgenössischer Wahrnehmung,“ Historische Zeitschrift 292 (2011), 593–612, at 605 and Harald Zimmermann, “Der Canossagang von 1077, Wirkungen und Wirklichkeit,” Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur – Abhandlungen der Geistesund Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 5 (1975), 135. Only Hanna Vollrath, “Lauter Gerüchte? Canossa aus kommunikationsgeschichtlicher Sicht, Päpstliche Herrschaft im Mittelalter. Funktionsweisen – Strategien – Darstellungsformen,” in Mittelalter-Forschungen 38, ed. Stefan Weinfurter (Stuttgart, 2012), 151–198, at 190, refers to his closeness to archbishop Siegfrid I and suggests that Marianus’ description should be read more closely. 16 Patrick McGurk, “Worcester, John of (fl. 1095–1140),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography vol. 60 (Oxford, 2004), 292–3.

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

65

regarded the goings-on under Henry IV in their entirety and reflected them precisely. Marianus Scotus had written in his entry about Canossa that there was a peaceful meeting with Henry IV and Gregory VII, while Henry received the lifting of the excommunication and Gregory received his seat. On the contrary, John changed this entry and commented on it. He shortened the second part of the sentence, referring to a mutual peace contract (inuicem pacificantur) and added sed falso ut postea claruit.17 He considered Marianus’ writings in their entirety and arrived at the conclusion that the sentence about Canossa was not wrong, but from a later point of view was misleading due to the ongoing conflict. John of Worcester perceived Canossa, even if he did not know the name of the place, as a peace between Henry IV and Gregory VII, but as a peace without value. Therefore, he did not want this to pass without comment. Even more critical of the sources were the historians when considering David Scolasticus’ (Scotigena) description of Henry V’s journey to Rome. John of Worcester, William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis used his now lost account for their information about 1111. William of Malmesbury refers to a David Scotigena, bishop of Bangor, in his Gesta regum about Henry V’s journey to Rome.18 David presumably was born in Ireland, became a master at the cathedral school of Würzburg, and came to Henry’s attention, who then made him his chaplain.19 At the emperor’s command, David wrote a now lost account of the expedition. That John of Worcester used this account as well has been proven by Martin Brett and Rodney Thomson.20 Orderic Vitalis does not mention David’s name explicitly, but he did write that an Irensis quidam scholasticus wrote the account about the Italian expedition, though Orderic uses his source very freely.21 John of Worcester reports – without narrating the background of the events or referring to Henry IV – that Henry V captured 17 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis, 30: “1100 Heinricus rex et Hiltibrandus papa conuenientes in mensa Martio in Longobardia, inuicem pacificantur, sed falso ut postea claruit”. 18 William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum III.420, 764: “Sed iter illud ad Romam magnis exercitationibus pectorum, magnis angoribus corporum consummatum Dauid Scottus Bancornensis episcopus exposuit, magis in regis gratiam quam historicum deceret acclinis”. 19 Tilman Struve, “David Scholasticus,” Lexikon des Mittelalters 3 (Stuttgart, 1986), 606–607. 20 Rodney Thomson, William of Malmesbury (Wolfeboro, 1986), 108; Brett, “John of Worcester and his contemporaries,” 116–117. Vollrath, “Sutri 1046 – Canossa 1077 – Rome 1111,” 158. 21 Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica X.1, 198: “Quam grauis et periculosa hiemps pluuiis et niuibus glacieque tunc fuerit, et quanta discrimina in angustis et inaequalibus uiis et in transitu fluminum exercitus pertulerit, et qualiter imperator collectis uiribus urbem obsessam plus minis quam armis expugnauerit Irensis quidam scolasticus decenti relatione litteris tradidit.”

66

Chwalka

Pope Paschal when he came to Rome, but that they had resolved the issue.22 Henry vowed to release and provide security for the pope. In return Paschal promised Henry the right to invest the candidate with ring and staff prior to the episcopal ordination and that he would never excommunicate the emperor. In the end, John recounts that the peace was made at Easter and Henry was crowned as emperor.23 Even though John compiled his source accurately, he does not follow David’s narration blindly. William of Malmesbury criticized David’s narration repeatedly for writing not as a historian but instead writing a panegyric.24 John did not criticize David freely, but – because there is no hint of any panegyric for Henry V in his text – had to shorten David’s text and praise. William even mocked David for comparing the capture of the pope with the biblical story of Jacob wrestling with an angel then insisting to be blessed.25 Neither John nor Orderic Vitalis nor any other English historian repeated this image or any other praise for Henry V. Even if they worked with this German source and used the materials like the oaths and contracts from it, they did not follow it blindly, but chose what they adopted from it very carefully. Despite their basis in good sources, their reflected handling of their sources and their lengthy entries about the investiture conflicts under Henry IV and Henry V, it is possible to say that the Holy Roman Empire was less important to English 12th century historians than the entries might at first sight cause one to presume. Though they provide descriptions of the actions of the emperors, their interest as historians was not in the figures of the emperor or because they were interested in the Holy Roman Empire, but because they were interested in the emperors’ interactions with the popes. They take notice of Henry IV’s quarrels with his sons, and they mention Henry V’s wedding to Matilda, daughter of the English king Henry I. Especially with Henry V it is possible to find in some of the English chronicles lengthy entries about 1111 and the ongoing 22 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis, 118–124; several oaths and contracts were included. 23 John of Worcester, Chronicon ex chronicis, 118: “Heinricus rex Theutonicorum Romam uenit Pascalem papam cepit, et in custodiam posuit, sed postmodum ad pontem uie Salarie, ubi Pascalem festiuitatem in campo celebrauerunt, pacem cum eo fecit.” This sentence was copied a lot by later historians. 24 William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum, V.420, 762–64 and V.426, 770: “Sed iter illud ad Romam magnis exercitationibus pectorum, magnis angoribus corporum consummatum Dauid Scottus Bancornensis episcopus exposuit, magis in regis gratiam quam historicum deceret acclinis. […] Ego interim, ne bonum uirum uerbo uidear premere, statuo indulgendum, quia non historiam sed panagericum scripsit. […] Omnem hanc ambitionem priuilegiorum et consecrationis uerbo de scriptis prefati Dauid transtuli, quae ille, ut dixi, pronius quam deberet ad gratiam regis inflecit.” 25 Genesis 32.26–29.

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

67

conflict with the popes up to the Concordat of Worms. But the majority of the entries, the quoted documents and letters, are always related to the popes. The interests of Orderic Vitalis, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, Symeon of Durham as well as later historians are primarily focused on church history and church leaders. Comparing the chronicles and annals with regard to their writings between 1070 and 1125, one should mention that besides entries about the investiture controversy, there are only a few short references to Henry IV and Henry V that have nothing to do with the investiture controversy. Though there was a direct connection between the Anglo-Norman and the Holy Roman Empire with the marriage of Henry V and Matilda, further news did not find its way into the chronicles. Even the marriage itself is only a marginal event compared to the conflict between the emperors and the popes. This interest can be explained by their clerical positions, but as well by the intense relationship the popes had with England after 1066 and the church-political developments in England. Whereas it is only possible to determine that most of the 12th century historians wrote solely about events in Germany only if such were related to the church and pope, with Symeon of Durham’s Historia regum it is possible to reconstruct the process of leaving out German news. John of Worcester’s approach in commenting Marianus’ description of Canossa has already been discussed. John had judged the Canossa meeting according to its meaning for the controversy and realized that there was not a lasting peace agreement. So he deleted half of the entry and wrote a commentary. Symeon’s Historia regum (for the years 849 to 1119) is based in great part on John’s chronicle.26 Especially with the entries about Henry IV, Symeon’s source becomes apparent.27 Symeon copied great parts of John’s annals but did not incorporate his entry about Canossa. Whereas John still depicted the meeting between Gregory VII and Henry IV and commented on the meeting, Symeon showed his judgment about this event simply by not copying it. The peace agreement proved not to be correct, as he had read it in John’s chronicle, so he did not have to mention it. The Canossa entry was simply dispensable. This conscious elimination is even more plausible, because this was not the only entry he decided not to copy. Symeon copied all news about the conflict between Henry IV and

26 27

Bernhard Meehan, “Symeon of Durham (fl. c. 1090–1140),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography vol. 53 (Oxford, 2004) 581–2. Symeon of Durham, Historia regum, to 1074, 200, to 1075, 206–207, to 1080, 211, to 1081, 211, to 1082, 211, to 1083, 211, to 1084 212, to 1101, 219. These entries are all compiled from John’s chronicle.

68

Chwalka

Gregory VII, but not Henry’s actions against the noble opposition and Rudolf of Rheinfelden. This is especially evident in a direct comparison: John of Worcester, Chonicon ex chronicis, vol. 3, 36: Heinricus rex Hiltibrandum papam in Pentecostem Mogontie decernit deponendum, et Wigbertum Rauenne urbis episcopum in natale sancti Iohannis Baptiste pro eo facit papam. Ruodolfus rex Saxonum bello occiditur apud Merseburg, ubi et sepultus est idus Octob. Mogontia ciuitas magnum terre motum k. Dec. sensit, et sequenti anno ex magna parte incendio conflagrauit cum principali monasterio et aliis tribus. Heinricus rex hostiliter Romam aduersus papam adiit oppugnans eam non tamen intrauit.

Symeon of Durham, Historia regum, 211: Henricus rex Hiltibrandum papam in Pentecostem Mogontie decernit deponendum, et Wibertum Ravenne urbis episcopum in natale sancti Iohannis Baptiste pro eo facit papam. Anno MLXXXIII Henricus rex hostiliter Romam adversus Hiltibrandum papam adiit, oppugnans eam non tamen intravit.

Symeon chose not to copy the death of Rudolf of Rheinfelden as well as the news about an earthquake in Mainz. Only the text passages regarding Henry and Gregory remained. 3

The Alexandrine Schism

But the lack of interest in the Reich is not confined to the times of Henry IV and Henry V. In later decades of the 12th century it is possible to ascertain a lack of interest as well. The papal election of 1159 (following the death of pope Adrian IV) resulted in a double election. The following 18 years of schism shaped the government of Frederick Barbarossa until the peace of Venice in 1177.28 Ottavian de Monticelli was supposed to be a friend of the Germans and a supporter of Emperor Frederick, and he had the support of the Roman 28 For a short outline of the schism: Odilo Engels, Die Staufer (Stuttgart, 1972), 87–95. Still an essential work: Timothy Reuter, The papal schism, the Empire and the West, 1159–1169 (Oxford, 1975). New insights: Peter D. Clarke / Anne J. Duggan, eds., Pope Alexander III (1159–81) (Farnham, 2012). See also Johannes Laudage, Alexander III. und Friedrich Barbarossa (Köln, 1997); Werner Maleczek, “Das Schisma von 1159 bis 1177. Erfolgsstrategie und Misserfolgsgründe,” in Gegenpäpste: ein unerwünschtes mittelalterliches Phänomen,

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

69

senate and public.29 Cardinal Rolando Bandinelli was elected by the majority of the cardinals.30 Rolando was known as a sharp opponent of Frederick I and his confident actions often opposed the Empire, as his role in the negotiations of Benevent and his dispute with Rainald of Dassel in Besançon had shown. Alexander III and Victor IV (Cardinal Rolando Bandinelli and Ottavian de Monticelli, respectively) took actions immediately after their elections to assure their positions.31 Frederick also sought solutions to resolve the situation. Jochen Johrendt presumed that Frederick saw himself – despite his personal problems with Rolando –as defensor ecclesiae, his duty as emperor.32 Frederick summoned the council of Pavia in February 1160, where he invited, besides the German and Italian bishops, bishops from other countries like from France and Angevin England as well. The desired effect of this council did not come to pass, because the resolution – the confirmation of Victor IV by 50 bishops – was not accepted. The Alexandrine party refused the decision of the council, because they felt justified in the cardinal’s election and the lack of neutrality on the emperor’s part.33 Even in the Reich not everyone was happy with the decision and the process of the decision, so Alexander III had a couple of supporters.34 But it was more problematic that France and Angevin England did not take part in the council. In fact, they summoned their own councils, first in London and then a joint council in July 1160 in Beauvais, where they acknowledged Alexander III.35 A unanimous decision was not reached and to the end of the year 1160 the whole orbis christianus – except the Holy Roman Empire, Bohemia, Poland and Denmark – supported Alexander III.36 It is easy to infer from the number of entries about the emperor’s action in the matters regarding the schism that there was great interest in how the

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

ed. Harald Müller and Brigitte Hotz (Wien, 2012), 165–204; Knut Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa. Eine Biographie (München, 2011), 316–23 and 389–461. Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa, 322, pointed out that Frederick supported Ottavian’s election with his attitude towards Rome and he probably approved the election. This would be his share in the genesis of the schism. To Alexander III and the reasons for his election see Anne J. Duggan, “Alexander ille meus: the Papacy of Alexander III,” in Pope Alexander III (1159–81), ed. Peter D. Clarke and Anne J. Duggan (Burlington, VT: Farnham, 2012), 13–49. Reuter, The Papal Schism, 12–16, 24–42. Jochen Johrendt, “The Empire and the Schism,” in Pope Alexander III (1159–81), ed. Peter D. Clarke / Anne J. Duggan (Farnham, 2012), 99–126, at 104. See also Reuter, The Papal Schism, 26–27. Laudage, Alexander III., 121. Johrendt, “The Empire and the Schism,” 106. Reuter, The Papal Schism, 41. Reuter, The Papal Schism, 59.

70

Chwalka

Empire was dealing with the schism. There are entries about the schism in twelve of the 27 analyzed chronicles from the 12th century. Considering that eight of the chronicles and annals were finished before the outbreak of the schism, there are only seven historiographies that did not write about the discord of Frederick I and the schism. Especially Roger of Howden, Gervase of Canterbury, Ralph of Diceto, Robert of Torigni, William of Newburgh and the Winchcombe Chronicle include several text passages about it.37 Historians with only a few entries – in quantity and length – were Ralph Niger with his two chronicles, Gervase of Canterbury with the Gesta rerum Britanniae and Ralph of Coggeshall, whose entries do not become lengthier until the Third Crusade.38 However the number of further text passages about the Holy Roman Empire, e.g., Barbarossa’s policy in Italy or the marriage of duke Henry the Lion and Matilda of England, argue against an overall interest.39 In Roger of Howden’s two chronicles, in Gervase of Canterbury’s two works, in Ralph of Diceto’s Ymagines historiarum, in William of Newburgh’s Historia rerum Anglicarum, in the Annals of St Osyth’s and in the Winchcombe chronicle there are only a few additional entries, which have nothing to do with the schism, but with the empire. The limited number of entries about Germany beyond the schism shows that the historians’ perception of the Empire was determined by the schism in the period between 1159 to 1177. The schism was always at the forefront of the news. Instead the chronicles have abundant passages about Pope Alexander III and his contacts with the English king, bishops, or Thomas Becket, with considerably more entries about that dynamic than about Germany and 37

The number of entries dealing with the Reich’s involvement in the schism are: Roger of Howden, Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis: 2 (127, 183–190); Roger of Howden, Chronica: 7 (vol. 1: 216, 219, 237–240, 244–248, 253, 253–255, 256–262; vol. 2: 137–143); Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica: 8 (166–167, 167, 171, 202, 204, 205–207, 247, 265–269); Ralph de Diceto, Ymagines historiarum: 6 (303, 306, 312, 318, 331, 421); Robert of Torigni, Chronicle: 8 (213, 213, 215, 216–217, 225, 230–231, 267, 273); Winchcombe Chronicle: 3 (530, 532, 538); Annals of St. Osyth’s: 2 (171, 171); William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum: 3 (117–121, 135, 144, 205–206). 38 Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta regum Britanniae: 1 (78); Ralph Niger, Chronica I: 2 (271, 282– 283); Ralph Niger, Chronica II: 1 (167); Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum: 1 (19). 39 Other entries dealing with the Reich: Roger of Howden, Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis: 1 (126); Roger of Howden, Chronica: 2 (vol. 1: 220; vol. 2: 101); Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica: 3 (171, 205, 205); Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta regum Britanniae: 0; Ralph de Diceto, Ymagines historiarum: 7 (308, 330, 353, 363, 397, 408–410, 416); Winchcombe Chronicle: 2 (530, 532); Annals of St. Osyth’s: 0; William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum: 2 (115–117, 132 ff.); Radulfus Niger and Ralph of Coggeshall are not further dealt with here because the shortness of the one’s entries and the other does not get more detailed until the 3rd crusade, respectively.

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

71

Frederick I.40 The majority of these entries were based on accounts of the council of Tours, correspondence about the Becket crisis, and the aftermath of the murder of Thomas Becket. The number of entries about contacts between England and Alexander III allows one to comprehend how close the contact between the different parties became due to the Becket crisis. This confirms Anne Duggan’s thesis that with trying to neutralize the archbishop of Canterbury, the pope became more and more embedded in English politics by king Henry.41 Alexander III was acknowledged as the legitimate pope by Henry II in July 1160; Frederick’s actions and his support of the anti-pope were condemned. While there had still been a kind of routine interaction between England and Alexander III, despite having to act carefully so as not to lose Henry’s support, the contact became closer with the controversy about the archbishop as the number of letters and legations do show.42 So the empire and its actions in the schism were noted, but it was not the main focus for historians. Comparing this to the results as to the perceptions about the investiture controversy, again the Empire and the emperor were not in the historian’s focus, but the church and the impact of the emperor’s dealings with the church. This result is supported by those places where entries about the schism and Frederick I can be found. The entries about the empire and the schism are not spread evenly through the years 1159 to 1177. Most of them are connected with the early years of the schism until Alexander’s flight to France in 1162 – means 40

Entries dealing with contacts between Pope Alexander III and England: Roger of Howden, Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis: 19 (7–9, 14–15, 15–16, 16–17, 17–19, 19–20, 20–22, 24, 28, 32–33, 69, 85, 112, 113, 117, 124–125, 135, 161, 181); Roger of Howden, Chronica: 34 (vol. 1: 221, 222–223, 224, 224, 230–231, 231–232, 235–237, 241, 241, 243, 243–244, 255–256, 276–273, vol. 2: 6, 7–10, 17, 17, 18, 18–20, 20–22, 22–25, 25, 25–28, 28–29, 32–33, 35, 36–37, 37–39, 58, 65, 73, 79, 98, 100, 105–117); Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta regum Britanniae: 0; Ralph de Diceto, Ymagines historiarum: 29 (vol. 1: 307, 309, 310, 310–311, 314–316, 316–317, 330, 331–332, 332–333, 334–335, 335, 335, 337, 337–338, 338, 339–340, 340–341, 341–342, 345–346, 347–348, 351–352, 369–370, 378, 387–388, 390, 390, 396, 406, 410); Winchcombe Chronicles: 5 (530, 534, 538, 538, 538); Annales of St. Osyth’s: 4 (170, 171, 172, 177); William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum: 1 (160–165). In addition to these entries dealing with contacts between Pope Alexander III, the English episcopacy and Thomas Becket, other entries can be found dealing with the development of the schism without referring explicitly to the Reich: Roger of Howden, Chronica: 4 (vol. 1: 219, 223, 231, 269); Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica: 2 (182, 197); Ralph de Diceto, Ymagines historiarum: 2 (vol. 1: 303, 318); Winchcombe Chronicle: 3 (528, 530, 530). 41 Anne J. Duggan, “Henry II, the English Church and the Papacy, 1154–76,” in Henry II: New Interpretations, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent (Woodbridge, 2007), 154–183, at 182. 42 Hanna Vollrath, “Lüge oder Fälschung? Die Überlieferung von Barbarossas Hoftag zu Würzburg im Jahr 1165 und der Becket-Streit,” in Stauferreich im Wandel, ed. Stefan Weinfurter, Mittelalter-Forschung 9 (Ostfildern, 2002), 149–171, at 160.

72

Chwalka

the early turbulent years with the disputed elections and the councils. There are only a few entries for the years 1165 to 1168 and after that, there is a long silence in the English chronicles about the schism until the peace of Venice. At the same time there were many entries about the papal relationship with England. While it is comprehensible that there are text passages about the outbreak of the schism and about the resolution with the peace of Venice, it can be seen that the entries for the years 1165 to 1168 were inserted only due to the Becket-crisis. The term ‘Würzburg oaths’ is linked to the assembly of 1165 in Würzburg. Previously there was the death of Victor IV and then the election of the new anti-pope, Paschal III, which caused new disturbances.43 Due to the growing opposition of some bishops, Frederick wanted to secure the princes’ obedience to Paschal III and unify the Holy Roman Empire again. The main adversaries were the archbishop of Salzburg and Konrad I, archbishop of Mainz. Frederick I himself swore never to acknowledge the schismatic Rolando or any other person elected by Rolando’s party, but to support instead Paschal III in everything.44 Most of the princes took part in this oath. In Würzburg there were Angevin delegates as well. For a long time there was the presumption that Henry II wanted to switch his obedience, because Frederick’s newsletters of this event announced English envoys had sworn to support Paschal III and abjure Alexander III.45 The reason of this change has been seen in Henry’s conflict with Thomas Becket, his exile in France, and his contact with Pope Alexander. The treaty’s basis has been identified in Rainald of Dassel’s journey to England and the marriage agreements for two of Henry’s daughters with 43

Recently, with the latest findings, Vollrath, “Lüge oder Fälschung?,” 150–171. Cf. Reuter, The Papal Schism, 124–136; Johrendt, “The Empire and the Schism,” 113–117, Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa, 407–411. Outdated Gerhard Rill, “Zur Geschichte der Würzburger Eide von 1165,” Würzburger Diözesangeschichtsblätter 22 (1960), 7–19. 44 Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa, 409. 45 Barbarossa’s report on the Würzburg Oaths has been handed down in four different letters and circulars, see MGH DD FI:480–483, 395–402. A letter of John of Salisbury to John of Canterbury – in which he refers to the oaths of the English ambassadors – is also considered as a recognition of this circular, see for this Letter No. 177 to John of Canterbury, bishop of Poitiers, in The Letters of John of Salisbury 2, ed. W.J. Millor and H.E. Brooke (Oxford, 1979), 178–185. An anonymous letter to Alexander – which is handed down in two versions – also speaks of the Oaths: MTB 5, letter 98:184–188 and letter 99:188–191. These authors have the opinion that Henry II wanted to switch his obedience: Reuter, The Papal Schism, 131 and Marshall W. Baldwin, Alexander III and the Twelfth Century, The Popes through History 3 (New York, 1968), 100. Maleczek, “Das Schisma,” 201, somehow qualifies this judgment by stating that the change of obedience appeared to be imminent. Laudage, Alexander III., 159–160, however, points out that there have been doubts about the description of the process and especially about the unity in the German episcopacy.

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

73

Duke Henry the Lion and one of Frederick’s sons. Hanna Vollrath has been able to clarify in her article “Lüge oder Fälschung” that the Angevin envoys swore mutual assistance. Frederick rephrased the truth in the newsletters and made active support in his politics regarding them.46 Vollrath even calls the newsletters a propaganda letter.47 While it is not possible to find any comments about the oaths in German historiography, there are three English historians who wrote about them. Two hints about the oaths can be found in Roger of Howden’s Chronica. Roger inserted many of Thomas Becket’s letters as well as papal, royal, or other letters in his account of the Becket-crisis. Therefore, there is a letter from the archbishop of Canterbury to his bishops explaining the excommunication of John of Oxford, who had sworn an oath to the schismatics and with that revitalized the schism in Germany.48 Thomas Becket does not mention in his letter the Würzburg assembly explicitly and he does not mention that this happened on Henry II’s order. Presumably, Thomas Becket was referring to the anonymous letter Epistola amici ad Alexandrum papam, a letter with two different versions, written by a supporter of Alexander III.49 Roger of Howden inserted a second letter to Alexander III, in which Becket repeated his explanations for the excommunication because of the envoys dealings with the schismatics 46

Vollrath finds the sudden change of obedience implausible, as the majority of bishops in England had been in favor of Alexander III and his recognition had been pursued since 1160. With a sudden change of obedience –happening without consultation – Henry II would have destroyed the unstable balance in England. Also, after the circular and further letters came up, there had been immediate denials from the English side. She doubts, however, that the letters to Alexander came from Thomas Becket, otherwise Henry II would have been shown much worse. She suspects a personal enemy of Rainald of Dassel to be the anonymous author. Recently, Vollrath’s considerations were criticized by Duggan, “Alexander ille meus,” 30 (especially annot. 88) – however not definitely refuted. Duggan thinks it quite possible that Henry II played a double game and changed his plans again. She does not hold Vollrath’s argument to be valid that there were not 50 English bishops Henry could have contributed as a bargaining chip, as there were 21 bishop seats in England and Wales and 27 in Henry’s possessions on the continent. 47 Vollrath, “Lüge oder Fälschung,” 171. 48 Roger of Howden, Chronica, to 1165, 237–240, at 238–239: “Denunciamus etiam excommunicatum, et excommunicavimus es nomine Johannem de Oxenford, qui in haeresim damnatam iudicit, praestando juramentum schismaticis; per quem schisma jam fere emortuum in Alemannia revixit; communicando etiam nominatissimo illi schismatico Reginaldo Coloniensi; et quia contra mandatum domini papae, et nostrum, Salesberiensis ecclesiae decanatum sibi usurpavit”. 49 The title of this letter is not the original one but was created later. See Laudage, Alexander III., 160 annot. 48. For the long version / letter version see MTB 5, letter 98:184–188, for the short version / protocol-version see MTB 5, letter 98:188–191.

74

Chwalka

being detrimental to the church.50 Nevertheless, it should not be ignored that these explanations were only a small part – only a few sentences – of these letters. The Würzburg oaths were not of central interest for Roger of Howden. The author was more interested in outlining the conflict between Thomas Becket and Henry II, Becket’s measures after his appointment as papal legate for England, and the excommunications of Vézelay in 1166 – a year after the Würzburg oaths – with the following synod of London and an increased communication among the archbishop, the Angevin episcopacy, Henry II, and Pope Alexander III.51 The Würzburg oaths were not the center of attention, but instead the Becket controversy. But yet in Ralph de Diceto’s far more detailed description of the oaths, it was not his intention to describe the developments in the Empire explicitly. In his Ymagines historiarum he inserted the so-called protocol of the letter in a shortened version, referring to a letter having Pope Alexander as its source.52 Ralph’s version was orientated to the protocol, but there are some changes.53 So he did not write that 50 English bishops would join Paschal’s party or that Angevin envoys swore an oath. Rather he mentioned the demand of the bishop of Magdeburg, that Rainald of Dassel should abjure Alexander for all times and should be ordained by Paschal. The Cologne archbishop protested, but he had to swear by imperial order. After that, Frederick and other participants of the assembly did the same. There is no entry that the envoys swore an oath as well. Besides not mentioning the envoys’ oaths, he reported this as taking place in 1168, three years after the assembly and two years after the excommunications 50

Roger of Howden, Chronica, to 1166, 253–255, at 254–255: “Nominatim autem excommunicavi Johannem de Oxeneforde, qui communicavit schismatico et excommunicato illi Reginaldo Coloniensi; quique, contra mandatum domini papae et nostrum, usurpavit sibi decanatum Salesbiriensis ecclesiae, et in curia imperatoris pro schismate renovando, praestitit juramentum. Similiter et Ricardum de Yvecestre denunciavimus et excommunicavimus, eo quod inciderit in eandem haeresim damnatam, communicando famosissimo schismatico illi Coloniensi, machinando et fabricando omnia mala cum schismaticis et Teutonicis illis, in perniciam ecclesiae Dei, maxime ecclesiae Romanae, ex pactis contractis inter regem Angliae et ipsos; et Ricardum de Luci et Jocelinum de Balliol, qui regiae tyrannidis fautores et haereticarum illarum pravitatum fabricatores exstiterunt […]”. 51 Frank Barlow, Thomas Becket (Berkeley, 1986), 147–150. To the discussion about the legality of the excommunication see Richard Helmholz, “Excommunication in Twelfth Century England,” Journal of Law and Religion 11,1 (1994/1995), 235–253, at 242–243. 52 The protocol is a shortened version of the Epistola amici ad Alexandram papam. Laudage, Alexander III., 160 annot. 48, presumes that the protocol was written by a German eyewitness. For the long version / letter version see MTB 5, letter 98:184–188, for the short version / protocol-version see MTB 5, letter 98:188–191. 53 Ralph de Diceto, Ymagines historiarum 1, to 1168, 331: “Alexandro papae scriptum est in haec verba”.

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

75

of Vézelay.54 The author’s access to sources, like papal or royal letters or letters from Gilbert Foliot or Thomas Becket was very good, so a conscious concealment of the oaths has to be assumed. This assumption is confirmed by the following letter of Gilbert Foliot to Pope Alexander affirming that Henry was loyal to him and would never turn away from him.55 Though there is not in the present text any notice about a possible change in obedience, Ralph emphasized the loyalty of Henry II to Gilbert Foliot. Ralph de Diceto was, even if he respected the archbishop – Charles and Anne Duggan as well as John Mason presumed he tended to Becket’s side – absolutely loyal to Henry II and Gilbert Foliot, a close friend and patron.56 In his Ymagines historiarum he tried to find a balance between all the different sides.57 So he showed “editorial tact” by concealing the presence of some of his friends in Würzburg and he could be assured that a change in allegiance would not happen, because this event had happened three years prior to his writing.58 With the following letter of Gilbert Foliot as well as his assigning it to the year 1168, Ralph could explain that Gilbert, even when he was excommunicated, always remained loyal to the king and to the true pope, and did not ill-advise his king as the archbishop of Cologne had done; instead, he had been a moderating influence in the Becket crisis. Ralph de Diceto was informed about the Würzburg oaths, but his text passages were not a narration about the events and the English connection to them. Rather he wanted to depict Gilbert Foliot’s and Henry II’s conduct and their loyalty to Pope Alexander. So here again, the Becket crisis was the center of attention and the Würzburg oaths were not seen as an important event in the schism, but as part of the Becket controversy. A description of Würzburg is most detailed in Gervase of Canterbury’s Chronica. Gervase recounts there the marriage of Henry the Lion with Matilda 54 55

For the excommunications see Ralph de Diceto, Ymagines historiarum, 318. Ralph de Diceto, Ymagines historiarum, to 1168, 332: “in primis asserens mentem suam a vobis se nullatenus avertisse, nec id unquam propositi mente concepisse, quin dum vos sibi patrem rebus ipsis cognoverit, vos ut patrem diligat, et sanctam Romanam ecclesiam ut matrem veneretur et foveat, et sacris jussionibus vestris, salva sibi sua regnique sui dignitate, humiliter obtemperet et obediat”. 56 Charles Duggan / Anne J. Duggan, “Ralph de Diceto, Henry II and Becket with an Appendix on Decretal Letters,” in Authority and power: studies in medieval law and government presented to Walter Ullmann on his seventieth birthday, ed. Brian Tiernay / Peter Linehan (Cambridge, 1980), 59–81, at 63, 75; John F.A. Mason, “Diceto, Ralph de,” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography vol. 16 (Oxford, 2004) 40–2. 57 Duggan, “Ralph de Diceto,” 69: “At critical phases, he appears to seek a balance in the choice of texts, to discuss the arguments of each side.” 58 Duggan, “Ralph de Diceto,” 70. Ralph was a friend of Richard of Ilchester’s, one of the excommunicated persons.

76

Chwalka

and about the meeting of the Saxon duke, the archbishop of Mainz, the Cologne archbishop (Coloniensis electus) and the bishop of Liège and their offer to help the English king against the French by joining Paschal’s side.59 Henry II treated them respectfully, but did not accept their offer.60 Then Gervase adds excerpts from the so-called protocol. Here again Frederick intended to make peace with Alexander III, but suddenly Rainald of Dassel appears and promises that 50 bishops would join the imperial party if he abjures Alexander III. As confirmation he presents the two Angevin envoys. After the emperor’s and the other participants’ oaths, the envoys themselves swear.61 Differently from the other descriptions, Gervase now makes mention of an assembly in London, where the public as well as the bishops should abjure Alexander III, but the episcopacy refuses to do that. As a sign of the legitimacy of their action, God lets Paschal die.62 Here Gervase takes up information from William of Canterbury’s Life of Thomas Becket.63 William related in chapter 43 that Henry wanted to turn away from Alexander due to the latter’s support of Thomas Becket. So, he sent the envoys to Würzburg.64 As a further affront to the pope, Henry enacted 59

Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, to 1168, 205: “Venerunt interea ad regem Angliae nobilissimi Alemmanniae et specatbiles legati, dux scilicet Saxonum gener regis, Maguntinus archiepiscopus, Coloniensis electus, et Leodicensis episcopus, cum multa ambitione et fast missi ab imperatore Frederico, multa ex Alemannis adversum francos spondentes auxilia, multisque temptantes moliminibus qualiter regem Angliae in scismatis sui partem inducerent, et ob favorem ipsius regnum Francorum cum bellico apparatu intrarent”. 60 Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, to 1168, 205: “Rex autem praedictos legatos cum multo suscepit honore, responsis prudentibus et blandiloquiis satisfaciens, ipsosque abeuntes prosecutus est multis gratiarum actionibus preciosis honoratos muneribus”. 61 Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, to 1168, 206: “Juraverunt etiam duo clerici nuntii regis Angliae in persona regis”. 62 Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, to 1168, 207: “Per totiam etiam Angliam ex praecepto regis a populo juratum est, quod ad praeceptum regis faciendum omnes forent parati; unde et congregatio episcoporum, et abbatum, et aliarum personarum ecclesiasticarum apud Londonias facta est. Sed et supprior et monachi Cantuariensis ecclesiae ex imperio regis jussi sunt ibidem adesse. Cum autem super hoc juramento faciendo convenirentur episcopi, et ipsi tam detestabile juramentum contra Deum et Alexandrum papam praestare noluissent, dilatum et infatuatum ets tam iniquum et enorme negotium, et quisque ad sua repedavit. Homo proponit sed Deus disponit. Homo proposuit scismaticum exaltare, sed Deus disposuit, immo et deposuit eum, nam in brevi Paschalis ille defunctus est. Imperator tamen caeterique scismatici, jam duobus defunctis, tertium falsum papam substituerunt”. 63 There is not much information about William of Canterbury, Benedictine monk in Canterbury. He was present at Thomas’ murder and wrote after that a life of the late archbishop and a collection of his miracles. Presumably he wrote the Life between 1172 to 1174. 64 William of Canterbury, Miraculorum gloriosi (MTB, I), cha 44, 52: “Unde dolorum suum in fide vindicaturus, clericos duos misit ad imperatorem alemannorum fredericum, qui coacto concilio de pace Romanae ecclesiae tractabat, mandans, quod si nomen et

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

77

supplements to the Constitution of Clarendon and took actions against family members of the archbishop. Furthermore, the public should abjure Alexander III.65 Gervase softened William’s strong attitude against Henry II, because he wrote his Chronica many years after the murder of Thomas Becket and he had seen that Henry had never changed his obedience in the schism and regretted the murder of the archbishop. Again, neither the Würzburg oaths nor the empire and the schism are the center of attention, but the Becket controversy instead. The oaths were only seen as a further act in the conflict between Henry II and Thomas Becket. The exception in these statistics is Robert of Torigni and his chronicle. In eight entries he refers to the Empire and Frederick’s actions in the schism; in six entries he reports about further developments of the schism; then there are twelve entries about news in the empire – but there are only two entries about Alexander’s relationship to England.66 So, was he the one who was deeply interested in Germany? Robert of Torigni joined the monastery of Bec in 1128 and became prior in 1149.67 In 1154 he became abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, an office he had until his death in 1186. Being a member of the two most prominent monasteries in Normandy, he lived in the center of political events. Henry II visited Mont-Saint-Michel in 1158 and 1166 – Van Houts presumed that Henry II and Robert may have previously met in 1147– and Matilda, Henry I’s daughter,

obedientiam Alexandri papae abjuraret, participem se schismatis haberet cum episcopis et archiepiscopis suis”. 65 William of Canterbury, Miraculorum gloriosi (MTB, I), cha 46, 55: “Abjurante itaque populo, militibus, proceribusque beati Petri successorem Alexandrum per vicos, per castella, per civitates, ab homine sene usque ad puerum duodennem […]”. These supplements have rarely received attention. David Knowles, Anne J. Duggan, and Christopher N.L. Brooke, “Henry II’s Supplement to the Constitutions of Clarendon,” The English Historical Review 87 (1972), 757–771. Councils & Synods, with other Documents relating to the English Church 1/ II, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, Martin Brett, and Christopher N.L. Brooke (Oxford, 1981), 926– 939. Paul Brand, “Henry II and the Creation of the English Common Law,” in Henry II. New Interpretations, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent (Woodbridge, 2007), 215–241, at 230. 66 Entries in Robert of Torigni’s Chronicle dealing with the Reich’s involvement in the schism: 8 (213, 213, 215, 216–217, 225, 230–231, 267, 273); entries dealing with the Reich without references to the schism: 12 (195, 199, 201, 213, 220–221, 222, 224, 234, 240, 253, 266, 270); entries dealing with the schism without references to the Reich: 6 (204, 215, 219, 222, 239, 239–240); entries dealing with the papal relationship with England: 2 (235, 263). 67 Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550 to c. 1307 (London, 1974), 261–263, here 261; Elisabeth van Houts, “Le roi et son historien: Henri II Plantagenêt et Robert de Torigni, abbé du Mont-Saint-Michel,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 37 (1994), 115–118, at 115.

78

Chwalka

as well.68 He saw himself as even a kind of mentor to the empress.69 He actually became godfather to Eleanor, Henry II’s daughter.70 His strong relationship to the royal family is clearly visible in his works. As Henry’s retainer, Henry II was a patron of Mont-Saint-Michel – he would not write critical comments about the king. This explains why there are only two entries about Pope Alexander’s relationship to England and none about the Becket crisis with the murder in 1170 and the subsequent penance by Henry II.71 Nevertheless, Robert wrote in detail about Frederick I, his Italian journeys, and his interventions in the schism. In doing so, Robert of Torigni could develop a strong contrast between the English king as a deeply religious man, always loyal to Alexander III, and the Holy Roman emperor, who supported the anti-pope. So Robert criticized Frederick for the discordia inter regnum et sacerdotium […] propter schism Octaviani, while Henry was devote semper Romanam ecclesiam.72 Henry II fulfilled the officium stratoris respectfully when he met Alexander III – a side blow to Frederick Barbarossa and the frictions about this service in Sutri 1155.73 68 Gransden, Historical Writing, 261; Van Houts, “Le roi et son historien,” 117, who explains the contact and the mutual agreement – upon other terms – with the acknowledgement occurring quickly and without difficulties. 69 David Bates, “Robert Torigni and the Historia Anglorum,” in The English and their Legacy, 900–1200. Essays in Honour of Ann Williams, ed. David Roffe (Woodbridge, 2012), 175–184, at 177. After Matilda’s return to England she was always called “empress” pursuant to the marriage to her first husband, Emperor Henry V. 70 David S. Spear, “Torigni, Robert de (c.1110–1186),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 55 (Oxford, 2004). 71 Spear, “Torigni, Robert de”; Gransden, Historical Writing, 262–263. One of the entries where Robert refers to Pope Alexander III is about papal legates coming to England for Henry II’s penance after the assassination of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Robert of Torigni depicted that Henry – without hesitation and despite his stay in Ireland – received them in a friendly and honouring manner. See also Robert of Torigni, Chronicle, 235–236. 72 Robert of Torigni, Chronicle, 213 to the support of Henry II for Alexander III while Frederick I destroyed with Octavian the peace between regnum and sacerdotium zerstörte: “Discordia inter regnum et sacerdotium adhuc perdurante propter schism Octaviani, quem rex Romanorum Fredericus secum in Italia habebat, Alexander papa Romanus, confidens de regibus Francorum Ludovico et Anglorum Henrico, qui devote simper Romanam ecclesiam fovent et venerantur, ad cismontanos marina expedition circa Pascha venit, et apud Montem Pessulanum in Provincia debita honorificentia susceptus est”. 73 The English king did the strator service, 215: “Exinde, parvo spatio temporis interjecto, Ludovicus rex Francorum et Henricus rex Anglorum super Ligerim apud Cociacum convenientes. Alexandrum papam Romanum honore congruo susceperunt, et usi officio stratoris, pedites dextra laevaque frenum equi ipsius tenentes, eum usque ad praeparatum papilionem perduxerunt. Quo mediante, Deo favente, pax inter eos firma restituta est”. In the 12th century it became common to welcome the pope by holding the reins of the papal horse and holding the stirrup for dismounting. Meeting Hadrian IV in Sutri

How Anglo-Norman and Angevin Historians Perceived the Empire

79

Robert also described the ultio divina for Frederick’s behavior with the catastrophe of the fourth Italian campaign, the death of archbishop Rainald of Dassel, and the death of many counts and soldiers.74 While for many twelfth century historians, the Becket controversy was prominent in the sixties and seventies of the twelfth century and they depicted the papal actions in detail, the schism was for Robert of Torigni the possibility for concealing the crisis and to depict Henry II as an ideal king by reporting continuously and extensively about the Empire. The number of entries about the Empire evolved not through an interest of Robert of Torigni in it or that he conceded the Empire a certain kind of position among European kingdoms, but rather to depict Henry II as a true king compared to Frederick Barbarossa. 4

Conclusions

The analysis of the entries about the Holy Roman Empire in Anglo-Norman and Angevin sources shows that simple statistics can be misleading in the examination of sources. The introductory statistic makes clear that there are more entries about Germany in Anglo-Norman or Angevin sources, much more than references to England in German 12th century historiography. But the detailed analysis with the case studies – the perception of the investiture controversy and the perception of the Alexandrine Schism – shows that large numbers do not mean that English historians were interested in German politics. Especially if the numbers of the perceptions of the other are compared to perceptions of other contacts such as the perception of Alexander III in 1155, Barbarossa refused to do that, so the pope did not give him the kiss of peace. This caused severe conflicts between the empire and the papacy. See also Görich, Friedrich Barbarossa, 241–246. 74 The punishment for Frederick’s behaviour shows itself in the catastrophe of the fourth expedition to Italy, 230–231: “Circa Pentecosten, Fredericus imperator Alemannorum, missis exercitibus suis, multos Romanorum occidit, ipse ab eisdem similia recepturus. Circa mensem Julium per semetipsum Leoninam Romam obsedit et cepit, et quaedam juxta ecclesiam Beati Petri destruxit, scilicet porticum et alia nonnulla. Antipapam etiam Widonem de Creme Romam adduxit, et per manum ipsius uxorem suam in imperatricem fecit coronari. Subsecuta est e vestigio ultio divina. Nam Karolus, filius Corradi, qui ante Fredericum imperaverat, consobrinus ejus, mortuus est, et Rainaldus, archiepiscopus Coloniensis, cancellarius ejus, cujus consilio multa mala faciebat, et episcopus Leodicensis, et multi alii tam episcopi quam consules, similiter perierunt. Dicitur enim quod, crassante mortalitate, XXV. Milia hominum de exercitu suo mortui sunt. Longobardiae civitates, quae sunt numero XXV., Mediolanum reaedificant et ab imperatore deciscunt, praeter Papiam et Vercellas”.

80

Chwalka

the Becket controversy. Consequently, the perception of Germany can be perceived as marginal. Most of the time the historians had a multitude of sources about events in the Empire. With the investiture controversy they even had sources which were written in Germany. But they did not simply copy them without reflection but evaluated the descriptions and arranged the information in fit their own perception of events. They could be very critical with their sources, as the example of David Scolasticus and his report about Henry V’s journey to Rome shows. But both case studies – despite the statistics – show that the Holy Roman Empire was less important for the twelfth-century historians than it is often presumed, the interest laying primarily in the pope and the church. With the Investiture Controversy what the popes had to suffer at the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor was interesting; for the Alexandrine Schism the focus lay primarily on the Becket crisis, with the schism as a kind of background information. They even often copied the information about the Empire only, as Symeon of Durham’s chronicle shows us, if it was combined with the church. The perceptions of Germany in the twelfth century by Anglo-Norman and Angevin historians were mostly seen through papal lenses.

chapter 5

“… rogans eum sibi in auxilium contra superbiam Teutonicorum”: The Imaging of ‘Theutonici’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources between the Ninth and Fourteenth Centuries David Kalhous “Who established Germans to judge over the nations?”, asked John of Salisbury in 1160 in one of his letters and in years following, he criticized the “German tyrant”, emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152–1190).1 Was his criticism of “Germans” unique? Moreover, who were the “Germans”, whom he complained about so severely? Thanks to Eckhart Müller-Mertens, we better understand the genesis of the term “Thiudisco” with its beginnings in Carolingian Italy, where it was first used as an adjective to comment on “barbarians” from beyond the Alps. “Thiudisco” meant “popular/folkish” and was similar to the Slavic term “Němci”, “dumb” or “mute” people.2 Within the borders of the East Frankish kingdom, it was not used regularly until the second half of the eleventh century. At that time it signaled allegiance to the papacy, which started to use that adjective to weaken the universal claims of the king and emperor, Henry IV 1 Cf. “Quis Teutonicos constituis iudices nationum?,” in John of Salisbury, Letters 1. The early letters, 1153–1161, eds. and transl. William J. Millor, and Harold E. Butler, Christopher N.L. Brooke, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1979), 207, Nr. 24; and id., The letters 2. The later letters, 1163– 1180, Nr. 68: “Teutonicus tyrannus” or “Nonne Teutonicus tirannus nominis sui fama nuper orbem percularet et fere subegerat regna vicina …”. 2 Eckhardt Müller-Mertens, Regnum Teutonicum. Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs- und Königsauffassung im früheren Mittelalter. Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 15 (Berlin, 1970); also Heinz Thomas, “frenkisk: Zur Geschichte von theodiscus und teutonicus im Frankenreich des 9. Jahrhunderts,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte des Regnum Francorum. Referate beim Wissenschaftlichen Colloquium zum 75. Geburtstag von Eugen Ewig am 28. Mai 1988, ed. Rudolf Schieffer (Sigmaringen, 1990), 67–95; idem, “Theodiscus – Diutiskus – Regnum Teutonicorum. Zu einer neuen Studie über die Anfänge des deutschen Sprach- und Volksnamens,” Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 51 (1987), 287–302; idem, “Regnum Teutonicum = diutiskono richi?,” Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 40 (1976), 17–45. For the Late Middle Ages, see Len Scales, The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245–1414 (Cambridge, 2012). The term “Theutonic” is Roman already.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_006

82

Kalhous

(1056–1106).3 Soon the term became widespread over Europe, and even the inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire, who spoke with different Germanic dialects, started to call themselves not only Saxons, Swabians, or Bavarians, but also Theutonici.4 Discussions about nations and nationalism in the Middle Ages have never led to any convincing results – the reason might be, for one thing, that theorists mostly did not work with medieval sources and based their conclusions on secondary literature and, for the other, specialists were too keen to take over those theoretic conclusions as given premises of their own research. This led to a vicious circle. Consequently, it makes better sense to analyze concrete strategies of identifications and sources of social cohesion, rather than to discuss them on a theoretical level.5 In my paper, I will focus on the image of Theutonici in selected high medieval historiographical sources from Bohemia. The first is the chronicle written by Cosmas of Prague between 1117–1125, which was preserved in 15 manuscripts (until one was destroyed by fire in 1870); it strongly inspired most of the medieval Bohemian chronicles, histories and annals.6 Its importance is supported by the fact that it was continued by an anonymous canon of a Prague chapter in 11407 and by an anonymous monk of Sázava twenty years later.8 Although highly respected in modern times, two other texts remained 3 Müller-Mertens, Regnum Theutonicum. 4 For an extended discussion of the “birth” of Germany and France cf. Carlrichard Brühl, Die Geburt zweier Völker. Deutsche und Franzosen (9.–11. Jahrhundert) (Böhlau, Köln u. a., 2001). 5 Among many others, Benedict Anderson, Imagined communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London, 1983; repr. 2006), 9–47; for modernism of nationalism: Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Malden-Oxford-Victoria, 1986; repr. 2005) for its long history. 6 For manuscripts cf. Bertold Bretholz in his edition of the Chronicle Cosmas Pragensis, Chronica Boemorum, ed. idem, MGH SSrG. N. S. 2 (Berlin, 1923), XLV–LXXXV, or David Kalhous, “The piece that fitted in different puzzles. Chronicle of Cosmas Pragensis (ca. 1120) and its manuscript context,” (forthcomming); for the latest analysis of the text cf. Lisa Wolverton, Cosmas of Prague: Narrative, Classicism, Politics (Washington, DC, 2015). 7 Kanovník Vyšehradský, Pokračování Kosmovo [Cintinuatio of Cosmas], ed. Josef Emler, FRB (hereafter cited as FRB) 2 (Praha, 1874), 201–237; for the latest analysis cf. Lukáš Reitinger, “Psal tzv. Kanovník vyšehradský opravdu na Vyšehradě? První Kosmův pokračovatel v kontextu dějepisectví přemyslovského věku,” [Did the so-called Vyšehrad Canon really write in Vyšehrad? Cosma’s first successor in the context of the historiography of the Přemyslid age] Český časopis historický 113 (2015), 635–668, who proved its author was a canon of St.-Vitus cathedral chapter, and not of a collegiate chapter in nearby Vyšehrad. 8 Mnich Sázavský, Pokračování Kosmovo [Continuatio of Cosmas], FRB 2, 238–269; for the latest analysis cf. Marie Bláhová, “Sázaver Geschichtsschreibung,” in Der heilige Prokop, Böhmen

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

83

nearly unknown to the medieval audience, but will be analyzed here, are: the chronicle of the Premonstratensian Bohemian province written by the abbot, Gerlach of Milevsko (ca. 1210), and the Gesta of the king, Vladislav II, penned by Vincencius, a canon of the Prague chapter (†1167). Both texts can be read together in one medieval manuscript compiled by Gerlach himself.9 Henry the Woodcutter, chronicler of the peripheral Cistercian monastery Žďár (Saar), compiled his text ca. 1300 and it did not affect many medieval readers either.10 Yet, all these text enable us to bridge the gap between the chronicle of Cosmas, also known predominantly from later manuscripts, and other Bohemian medieval “bestsellers”, the chronicles of what is usually referred to as ‘Dalimil’, which articulates the requirements and fears of Bohemian nobility after the Přemyslid dynasty died out 1306,11 and of Přibík Pulkava of Radenín, a clergyman and courtier who was asked by the emperor, Charles IV (1344/6–1378), to write a new chronicle for him.12 Both of these fourteenth-century chronicles were translated into all three languages used in the Czech lands in that time: Dalimil’s rhymed chronicle from Czech to Latin and twice to German, Přibík’s from simple Latin to Czech and German. In total, they are known from more than fifty medieval manuscripts – fourteen copies of what is called ‘Dalimil’ and nearly forty of the chronicle of Přibík Pulkava. Let us start with Cosmas of Prague. His use of the term Theutonicus is mostly descriptive and neutral; it just helps him label that group of people. However, these ‘neutral’ notes do reveal that he relates gens Theutonicorum to a specific

und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium Benešov – Sázava 24.–26. September 2003, ed. Petr Sommer (Praha, 2005), 185–204. 9 Vincencius, Letopisy, FRB 2, 403–460; Jarloch, Letopisy, ibidem, 461–516; for the latest analysis cf. Anna Kernbach, Vincenciova a Jarlochova kronika v kontextu svého vzniku. K dějepisectví přemyslovského období, [Vincent and Jarloch’s chronicle in the context of its origin. On the historiography of the Přemyslid period] Knižnice Matice moravské 28 (Brno, 2010). 10 Henry the Woodcutter, Chronicon domus Sarensis Maior, ed. Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Chronica domus Sarensis maior et minor (Třebíč, 2003). 11 Tak řečený Dalimil, Kronika [So-called Dalimil, ed. Jiří Daňhelka and col., col. 1–3 (Praha, 1988–1995). Cf. Éloïse Adde-Vomáčka, La chronique de Dalimil: les débuts de l’historiographie nationale tchèque en langue vulgaire au XIVe siècle (Paris, 2016). 12 Přibík Pulkava z Radenína, Kronika [the Chronicle], ed. Josef Emler, FRB 5 (Praha, 1893), I–XX, 1–326. Cf. Marie Bláhová, “Přibík Pulkava z Radenína, Kronika česká,” [Přibík Pulkava from Radenín, The Czech Chronicle] Kroniky doby Karla IV., ed. Marie Bláhová, (Praha, 1975), 572–580; Marie Bláhová, “Offiziele Geschichtsschreibung in den mittelalterlichen böhmischen Ländern,” in Die Geschichtsschreibung in Mitteleuropa. Projekte und Forschungsprobleme, ed. Jarosław Wenta (Toruń, 1999), 21–40.

84

Kalhous

territory,13 and that he recognizes its specific language.14 Also calling Theutonici a gens means that they were probably understood by Cosmas as a group having a common origin15 – just a few years earlier, narratives about the mythical origins of different ethnic groups within the Holy Roman Empire had started to circulate.16 In the chronicle of Cosmas, Theutonici are represented by their elites.17 This also means that for Cosmas, there were also Theutonici of humble origin.18 To him, it also seems to have been easy to recognize the Theutonici either as individuals,19 or as a group.20 Although they might have lived in 13 Cosmas, Chronica I. 40, 73: “Hisdem temporibus Teutonicis in partibus fuit quidam comes valde potens, cognomine albus Otto, sanguine de regio prodiens stemmate patrio”.; ibid., II. 18, 110: “[…] occidentalem vero, que est versus Teutonicos, dat Conrado, qui et ipse sciebat Teutonicam linguam”.; ibid., III. 3, 163: “Eodem anno fuit mortalitas hominum, sed maxima in Teutonicis partibus; nam redeuntibus predictis episcopis de Magoncia, dum transirent per quandam villam nomine Amberk, parrochia[le]m ecclesiam quamvis satis amplam, que est sita extra villam, non potuerunt intrare, ut audirent missam, quia totum eius pavimentum usque ad unum punctum erat cadavere plenum.”; ibid., III. 4, ed. Bretholz, 164: “Eodem anno tanta fuit commotio, immo divina compunctio in populo Hierosolimam proficiscendi, ut perpauci in Teutonicis partibus et maxime in orientali Francia per urbes et villas remanerent coloni […]”. 14 Ibid., I. 34, 61; ibid., II. 29, 123. 15 Cf. n. 21 and 27. 16 Cf. David Kalhous, Bohemi: Prozesse der Identätsbildung in frühpřemyslidischen Ländern (bis 1200), Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 24 (Wien, 2018), 89–91. 17 Cosmas, Chronica II. 10, 97: “[…] Teutonicorum  … nobilita.; ibid., III. 18, 182: … ex Teutonicis proceres […]”. 18 Cf. also n. 27. 19 Cosmas, Chronica II. 25, 118: “[…] comites Severum, Alexium, Marquardum Teutonicum […]”; ibid., II. 28, 123: “[…] clericus nomine Hagno, vir Teutonicus, philosophie domesticus, Tulliane eloquentie alumnus”. 20 Ibid. II. 9, 95: “[…] hec verba solvit ora: ‘Licet extruant muros silvis altiores, licet elevent turres sublimes usque ad nubes, uti frustra iacitur rete ante oculos pennatorum, sic nihil valent contra Teutonicos obpugnacula Boemorum. Aut u si ascendent super nubila aut si includant se inter sydera, Perditam et miseram gentem nihil ista iuvabunt.”; ibid., II. 35, ed. Bretholz, 132–133: “Venerat dux Wratizlaus cum Boemiis simul et Teutonicis, qui erant presulis Ratisponensis; ast alia de parte Otto et Conradus adiungunt se cum suis omnibus qui sunt in tota Moravia militibus. […] Iussit Teutonicos a dextrum irrumpere cornu, fratres vero suos Conradum et Ottonem ordinat pugnare in sinistra ala.”; ibid., III. 15, 178: “Nam Borivoy collecto exercitu occurrens eis castra metatus est supra duos colles iuxta oppidum Malin, paratus in crastinum cum eis committere bellum. Teutonici vero non longe ex altera parte rivuli Wyzplisa applicuerunt castra, ita ut uterque ab utrisque possit e videri exercitus.”; ibid., III. 22, ed. Bretholz, 188: “Quem remittens ad patrem omne debitum, scilicet tria milia talentorum, compatri suo Zuatopluk dimisit et precepit, ut paratus sit secum in expeditionem contra seviciam Ungarorum; quia rogatu quorundam Teutonicorum illuc proposuerat ultum ire necem Hierosolimitanorum, quos illa gens ob crudelitatem suam alios gladio interemit, alios in servitutem redegit.”; ibid., III. 25,

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

85

Bohemia for a long time, for Cosmas and his contemporaries, they still remained ‘those’, ‘foreign’: this is well documented by the alleged speech of Kojata, son of Vsebor, against the princely chaplain and canon of Litoměřice-Chapter Lanco, whom prince Vratislav II of Bohemia (1061–1092) presented to the nobility and freemen as his candidate for the Prague bishopric:21 … Even if your brother displeases you, why do you sully our clergy, not just a little but equally skilled in learning, with this German? Oh, if you had as many bishoprics as you could find chaplains born in this land worthy of a bishopric! Do you think that a foreigner will love us more and desire better for this land than a native? Indeed, human nature is such that anyone, wherever his land, not only loves his people more than a foreign people but would even divert wandering rivers into his country if he could. We prefer, therefore, that a dog’s tail or the dung of an ass be placed on the holy seat rather than Lanzo. Your brother, Spytihněv of blessed memory, who expelled all the Germans from this land in one day, knew differently. The Roman emperor Henry IV yet lives and long may 194: “Quadam similiter die plus quam mille viros ex electis militibus a predicto rege ad hoc directos, quatenus per insidias aut pabulantes scutarios caperent aut super incautos Teutonicos noctu irruerent, dux Zuatopluk preagnoscens, ubi inter paludes latitabant, repente irruens, omnes usque ad unum, velut pisces missa sagena captos, alios interfici, alios in eculeo suspendi iusserat, paucis vero accepta magna pecunia vitam concesserat.”; ibid., III. 48, 220: “Eodem anno quidam ex Teutonicis infra terminos Boemorum in silva, ad quam itur per villam Bela, in prerupta rupe edificant castrum. Quod audiens dux Wladizlaus acceptis tribus scaris ex electis militibus repente ex inproviso irruens obtinuit castrum, ubi in primo accessu missis de muro sagittis vulnerati sunt, non tamen ad mortem, duo milites ducis, Oudalricus filius Wacemil et Olen filius Borsa. Illos autem Teutonicos, qui erant in castro capti, nisi comes Albertus superveniens multis precibus et innata sibi sagacitate liberasset, procul dubio iam dux h in eadem silva omnes suspendi iusserat. Eiusdem anni fuit hiemps nimis ventosa et calida et aquarum inundatio magna.”; Cf. also annot. 27. 21 Ibid., II. 23, 116: “Aut si tibi displicet frater tuus, cur sordet nostratum clerus non modicus, scientia eque preditus ut iste Teutonicus? O si tot habeas episcopatus, quot cernis capellanos hac in terra progenitos episcopio dignos! An putas, quod alienigena plus nos diligat et melius huic terre cupiat quam indigena? Humana quippe sic est natura, ut unusquisque, quacumque sit terrarum, plus suam quam alienam non solum diligat gentem, verum etiam si quiret, peregrina flumina in patriam verteret. Malumus ergo, malumus caninam caudam aut asini merdam quam Lanczonem locarier super sacram cathedram. Frater tuus, beate memorie Zpitigneu, aliquid sapuit, qui una die omnes Teutonicos hac de terra extrusit. Vivit adhuc Romanus imperator Heinricus et vivat; quem tu temetipsum facis, cum eius potestatem usurpans das baculum et anulum episcopalem famelico cani; certe non inpune tu et tuus episcopus feret, si Koyata filius Wsebor vivet.” – Wolverton, Cosmas of Prague, 142–143.

86

Kalhous

he live; usurping his power, you act against yourself when you give the episcopal ring and staff to a hungry dog. Surely you and your bishop will not go unpunished if Kojata, son of Vsebor, lives. Paradoxically, the nobleman who appreciated Spytihněv’s attack on Germans in Bohemia appealed to the authority of the Roman emperor. Although Theutonici often play the role of the aggressors in the chronicle, the ethnicity of individuals does not necessarily influence Cosmas’ attitude towards them: Marcus, provost of the Prague cathedral chapter, is one of the few other colleagues of Cosmas remembered in his chronicle, and he is immensely praised for his character, wisdom, or for the reform of the cathedral chapter. According to him, Marcus exceled over all people who lived in that time in Bohemia:22 … he gave his chaplain Mark the provostship of that same church. By the measure of human birth, Mark descended from a noble family of ancestors originating from the German people. He was mighty in wisdom before all the men whom the Czech land then contained. Cosmas, too, welcomed the election of a foreigner as bishop of Prague. He expected, that Hermann, who was not born in Bohemia, would be able to remain impartial exactly because of his foreign origin and would prefer the interests of the church before the interests of his family and friends:23 The duke, astonished at the unanimity of his own will and Wiprecht’s, said: ‘Your heart and mine hardly think differently. Because he is a foreigner, this will profit the church more. His kin will not exhaust it, the care of his freemen will not burden it, a crowd of his relatives will not despoil it. Whatever he brings from wherever he comes from, his bride and mother church will have the whole of it. Therefore, I order that he be bishop of Prague.’

22 Ibid., II. 26, 119: “[…] dat Marco capellano suo eiusdem ecclesie preposituram, qui secundum hominis genituram nobili ortus erat attavorum prosapia ducens originem de gente Teutonica, pollens sapientia pre cunctis, quos tunc habuit terra Boemica.” – Wolverton, Cosmas of Prague, 145. 23 Ibid., III. 7, 168: “Tunc dux ammirans suam et eius unanimem voluntatem ait: ‘Haud aliter cor tuum atque meum sapit. Et quia hospes est, plus ecclesie prodest; non eum parentela exhauriet, non liberorum cura aggravabit, non cognatorum turma despoliet, quicquid sibi undecumque veniet, totum sponsa eius et mater ecclesia habebit. Hic ergo faciam Pragensis episcopus ut sit.” – Wolverton, Cosmas of Prague, 189–190.

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

87

After all, even though the attempt of Vratislav II to promote his chaplain Lanco is severely criticized and Cosmas works here with negative stereotypes possibly widespread among secular elites, primarily it is an attack on the ruling prince, not on that clergyman, who is depicted glowingly.24 However, Cosmas did not present Theutonic solely in ‘neutral’ terms (language, territory, elites), but also came up with negative stereotypes when he regards Theutonici as “proud by birth” and mentions their “disrespect towards the Slavs and their language”.25 In another chapter of his chronicle, Cosmas speaks about “Theutonic foolishness”.26 Here, Cosmas echoes John of Salisbury’s criticism. Paradoxically, although Conrad I, prince of Brno and Znojmo (1061– 1092), asked his brother Vratislav II for support against “Theutonic pride”, they both hired an array of warriors from the bishop of Regensburg.27 A specific case is represented in the story about Prince Spytihněv II (1055– 1061), who acted to banish from his realm all “of the Theutonic tribe” including his own mother:28 24 Cf. n. 20. 25 Ibid., I. 40, 73: “Perpendit enim in natam Teutonicis superbiam et, quod semper tumido fastu habeant despectui Sclavos et eorum linguam.” 26 Ibid., III. 15, 177: “Preterea unde cumque potuit, non paucos sibi in auxilium acquirit Teutonicos, qui pro sui stulticia estimabant in Boemia auri et argenti pondera fore in plateis sparsa et exposita.” 27 Cosmas, Chronica, II. 35, 131–132: “Nam cum frequenter Conradus ad marchionem huiusmodi de compescenda mitteret verra et ille tumido fastu despiceret eius verba, supplex adiit fratrem suum Wratizlaum ducem Boemorum, rogans eum sibi in auxilium contra superbiam Teutonicorum. Qui suis quamvis non diffidens viribus tamen Ratisponensis episcopi unam scaram ex electis militibus precio/ conducit sibi in auxilium.” – cf. n. 19. 28 Ibid., II. 14, 103–104: “Prima die qua intronizatus est, hic magnum et mirabile ac omnibus seclis memorabile fecit hoc sibi memoriale; nam quotquot inventi sunt de gente Teutonica, sive dives sive pauper sive peregrinus, omnes simul in tribus diebus iussit eliminari de terra Boemia, quin etiam et genitricem non tulit remanere suam, de qua supra meminimus, Ottonis natam, nomine a Iuditham. Similiter et abbatissam sancti Georgii, Brunonis filiam, eliminat, quia hec olim antea eum verbis offenderat acerbis. Nam dum pater eius Bracizlaus reedificaret menia tocius urbis Prage per girum et hic supradictus heros a patre sibi concessam Satc haberet provinciam, forte exiit, ut cum suis circa sancti Georgii claustrum componeret murum. Et cum nullo modo recte poni posset murus, nisi destrueretur fornax abbatisse, qui ibi forte stabat, iactata fune in media, tunc aliis hoc facere cunctantibus accessit natus herilis et quasi risum sibi faciens cum magno cachinno iussit eum deicere subito in torrentem Bruznicam dicens: ‘Hodie domna abbatissa calidas non gustabit placentas.’ Quod agnoscens abbatissa exiit irata de claustro et valde moleste eius dicta ferens sic eum yronicis aggreditur et confundit dictis: ‘Nobilis, insignis, vir fortis et inclitus armis, Quam magnas turres nunc expugnavit et urbes Et sibi famosum fert de fornace triumphum, Timpora iam lauro victricia cingat et auro. Clerus multimodas campanis personet odas, Dux quia deiecit fornacem miraque fecit.” – Wolverton, Cosmas of Prague, 131–132.

88

Kalhous

On the first day on which he was enthroned, he did a great and marvelous thing, memorable for all ages, as a memorial to himself: as many as could be found of the German people, whether rich or poor or pilgrim, he ordered all of them banished at once from the land of Bohemia within three days. Not even his mother – the daughter of Otto, named Judith, about whom we spoke above – would he allow to remain. He likewise banished the abbess of St. George, the daughter of Bruno, because she had once earlier offended him with sharp words. For when his father, Břetislav, rebuilt the walls of the whole burg of Prague in a circle, and the aforesaid hero held the province of Žatec by his father’s grant, he happened to come with his people to construct a wall around the cloister of St. George. Now, it was in no way possible to position the wall correctly without destroying the abbess’s oven, which happened to stand there. With a rope thrown in its midst, others hesitating to do it, the master’s son approached. As if making a joke to himself, he ordered the oven thrown down suddenly into the stream (Brusnice) with a great guffaw, saying, ‘The Lady Abbess will not enjoy hot cakes today.’ Seeing this, the abbess came out furious from her cloister and, taking his words very badly, attacked and confounded him with these ironic words: ‘What a noble, distinguished, powerful man, renowned in arms! Much as he stormed great towers and burgs, now he brings off a famous triumph over an oven. His victorious temples are now wreathed with a golden laurel. Let the clergy resound with various melodies and bells, because the duke has thrown down an oven and done a wondrous thing. Ah! It is shameful to say that he is not ashamed to have done this.’ The man stiffened in his body, and his voice choked in his throat. Indignant, he restrained his rage with a groan. Cosmas confirms in the story that Theutonici represent for him not just members of the elites, but also people of humble origin. He, however, does not directly celebrate the prince, who was responsible for their punishment.29 His story about abbess of St. George monastery, which he includes as an explanation of Spytihněv’s action, is mere sarcasm towards that prince, although the latter’s image in the chronicle is otherwise positive – as it also confirms the description of his looks.30 To sum up, for Cosmas, Theutonici were clearly recognizable as an ethnic group, which spoke its specific language, inhabited primarily clearly defined 29 30

For an interesting interpretation combining gender and power aspects conf. Wolverton, Cosmas, 148–151. E.g. among the latest Wolverton, Cosmas, 117, 139–141.

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

89

territory and consisted of elites, but also people of humble origin. Their origin is for him an important indicator of their identification, as well, since he still perceives Theutonici who had lived for a long time in Czech lands as the “others”, which makes them e. g. also possible to be identified and to be expelled. Although his image of Theutonici is negative in part, he does not share any sentiments about the Slavs: the worst enemies of the Bohemi in his chronicle are the Slavic speaking Poles.31 There is also a question as to what extent Cosmas represents the feelings and sentiments of all inhabitants of the Přemyslid regnum? As Patrick Geary once mentioned, ethnicity could have been even in the Early Middle Ages a useful tool for labeling either enemies or allies in concrete political situations, or within a social conflict.32 That does not mean that it is just a result of authorial manipulations and deliberate decisions by the historical actors, or that it was active over time and that it must have been important to the same extent for all social strata. As ethnicity (and different layers of identity in general) are often activated by conflict, the probability of ethnic identification is simply higher among elites who represent a polity, which might be a product of that conflict. Among their clients (and later subjects), other, more localized identifications most probably prevailed.33 Whereas Cosmas’ continuators, Gerlach of Milevsko, or Henry the Woodcutter shared his basic categorization of “Theutonici” (territory,34 31

Barbara Krzemieńska, “Polska i Polacy w opinii czeskiego kronikarza Kosmasa.” [Poland and Poles in the opinion of the Czech chronicler Cosmas] Zeszyty naukowe Uniwersytetu Łodzkiego, Nauki humanistyczno-społeczne 15 (1960), 75–95. 32 Patrick J. Geary, “Ethnic Identity as a Situational Construct in the Early Middle Ages,” Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 113 (1983), 15–26. 33 For the importance of different identifications in fourteenth-century Czech lands cf. František Šmahel, “The Idea of the ‘Nation’ in Hussite Bohemia: an Analytical Study of the Ideological and Political Aspects of the National Question in Hussite Bohemia from the End of the 14th Century to the Eighties of the 15th Century,” Historica 16 (1969), 143–247; 17 (1969), 93–197. For the wider central-European context František Graus, Die Nationenbildung der Westslawen im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen, 1980) and Scales, The Shaping of German Identity. 34 Canonicus, Continuatio, 216: 1133, “[…] in Theutonicis partibus[…]”; Vincentius, Annales, 413, a. 1142: “Rex autem Conradus Wissegrad ueniens cum processione in die sancto pentecostes honeste suscipitur et honestissime a duce W[ladizlao] et domina Gertrude sua sorore, predicti ducis coniuge, Teuthoniam feliciter revertitur.” – ibid., 423, a. 1156: “His itaque peractis domnus imperator ex consilio suorum principum Veronenses in gratiam suam recipiens per Ueronam Teutoniam cum trihumpho feliciter reuertitur.” – Gerlacus, Annales, 464 a. 1170: “[Qui recuperata terra nec non et gratia patris, in Teutonia postmodum] peregre mortuus est.” – ibid., 506, a. 1184: “Interea Fridericus in Teutonia exercitum colligebat per amicos suos.” – ibid., 516, a. 1198, “Itaque Boemi Teutoniam ingressi mox circa Wirtzburc uersi sunt in sedicionem, et orta inter eos graui simultate, militares uiri fere omnes relictis domnis suis baronibus abierunt retro et redierunt in Boemiam.”

90

Kalhous

language,35 people,36 elites,37 origin),38 they follow him in the use of negative stereotypes only in exceptional moments. One example is the Sázava-addition to the Chronicle of Cosmas, which mentions the “Theutonic” origin of an abbot installed by Spytihněv II.39 We are told that he was an awful person, and his origin seems to be a complement to that characterization. Consequently, he was forced to leave the monastery by the long since deceased St. Procopius, who threatened him in his dreams. For the anonymous Prague canon, Conrad III is not only “rex Romanorum”, but also rex Theutonicorum.40 Another Prague canon Vincencius mentions Theutonicorum cantus.41 For him, Theutonici seem to be all the German speaking subjects of the emperor, yet his enumeration of different nationes under 35 Cf. n. 42. 36 Canonicus, Contintuatio, ed. Emler, 215, a. 1132: “[…] dum ad quendam locum Omberk vocatum venirent, ibi cum Theutonicis foro praedicti loci pugnaverunt.” 37 Vincentius, Annales, 438, a. 1158: “totius Teutonie principes.”; Canonicus, Contintuatio, ed. Emler, 223, a. 1135: “Haec cum dixisset, cuncti principes Theutonici inanimiter responderunt, nullum imperatori adeo fidelem et familiarem ut ducem Sobieslaum, et cum prius pro infideli et inimico coram imperatore reputatus fuerit, in hoc praesenti negotio amicissimus et fidelissimus eius fautor liquido patuit.” Gerlacus, Annales, ed. Emler, 474, a. 1179: “Mortui sunt in eo proelio Zezema comes, pater domni Hroznatae, et Aghna, et alii multi, comes Witcho captus, capti etiam Teutonici maiores natu ex his, qui in adiutorium Friderici venerunt, multi quoque ex eis occisi, residuique nasos praecisi ludibrium mundo sunt effecti.” 38 Cf. annot. 38. 39 Gründung des Klosters Sázava, ed. Bertold Bretholz, in Cosmas, Chronica, 2, 248: “Memoratus namque dux Vito abbate cum nepote suo Emmerammo et fratribus, quos unitas caritatis concordaverat, in terram Hunorum per egre proficiscentibus, propria fautorum suorum consiliaria diffinitione utens in loco illo abbatem genere Teutonicum constituit, hominem turbida indignatione plenum. Ubi dum nocte prima adventus sui ex more ad matutinalem sinaxim pergens foribus ecclesie appropinquaret, apparuit vir sanctus Procopius infra ianuam oratorii appodians et dicens ei: ‘Unde tibi potestas hic degendi? Quid queris?’ At ille: ‘Potestativa’, inquit, ducis maiestas et eius primatum inconvulsa sublimitas mee possibilitatis regimini hoc cenobium usque ad finem vite mee tradidit.’ Cui sanctus pater: ‘Citissime’, inquit, ‘sine confusionis verecundia discede, quod si non feceris, ultio divinitus veniet super te’.” 40 Canonicus, Contintuatio, ed. Emler, 230, a. 1139: “Eodem tempore dux Sobieslaus levirum suum Belam, regem Pannoniae, convenit, nam idem rex Bela filiam suam filio regis Theutonicorum Conradi tradebat. Hae nuptiae in festo penthecosten celebratae sunt.” Ibid., 236, a. 1142: “Pragam vero metropolim civitatem ingressi cum Theobaldo, munitiones firmaverunt, Wladislaum propere ad regem Theutonicorum pro auxilio adipiscendo direxerunt…. Evolutis igitur paucis diebus pro dolore et afflictione non computatis, regis Theutonicorum Conradi conductorumque eius Wladislai ducis et episcopi Zdiconis […]”; for Theutonicae partes, cf. ibid., 214–217: 1132, 1133. 41 Vincentius, Annales, 451: 1161, “[…] id clamor ad astra Theutonicorum cantibus[…]”.

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

91

the emperor’s command does not allow any further specification.42 Henry the Woodcuter more than once made his reader aware of the different etymologies of toponyms in the surrounding region and argues for their Slavic origin.43 It is not possible for in this context to deal with the chronicles of Pulkava and Dalimil in detail,44 since the number of instances in which the Theutonici, or “Němci” are mentioned exceeds one hundred in Dalimil, and sixty in Pulkava. Because of that, I will merely focus on their strategies for identifying and “othering”, which will be compared with those of the authors previously mentioned. For Pulkava, Theutonici were also clearly recognizable through their language.45 They lived in a certain area.46 In one instance, he calls them (along with the Boemi, or Lombardi) a natio;47 in another place, he identifies Theutonici and Saxons.48 He is not particularly critical of them, only in one instance when he speaks about their “tyranny”.49 For a start, “Němci” are “bad guys” in the chronicle of Dalimil and are always responsible for the failure of “Češi”. Once a prince or king of Bohemia decides 42 Ibid., 452, a. 1162: “Imperator interea cum Boemis, Theutonicis, Lonbardis et aliarum nationum plurima militia Mediolanum circumire non desinit, fruges eorum, vineas et arbores fructiferas destruit, pecudes, armenta et quae potest eis aufert, castella, turres, quas potest, eis destruit, ex eis, quos capere potest, capit, suspendit, interficit”. Ibid., 454, a. 1163 “Imperator autem Theutonicorum, Papiensium, Cremonensium et aliorum Lonbardorum collecta militia, Mediolani suo residet pro tribunali, quid de tanta urbe faciendum sit, consilivm querit”. Ibid., 452, a. 1161, “[…] plurimi Alamannie episcopi […]”. 43 Henry the Woodcuter, Chronicon, 44: “Hoc in Latino resonat quasi castra gygantum: / ober enim Sclavice Latine sonat quasi gygas,/ Teutunici castrum tamen hoc Oberzez modo dicunt.; Sic Sar est Sclavicum, sonat hoc plantacio recens,/ quamvis Teutunici sar dicant gramina grossa, / Sar non Teutunico, sed de Sclavico trahit ortum.” 44 For the manuscripts cf. Eloise Adde-Vomáčka, “Environnement textuel et réception du texte médiéval. La deuxième vie de la Chronique de Dalimil,” Médiévales 73 (2017) 169–192. 45 Přibík Pulkava, “Kronika,” ed. Josef Emler, c. 39, 49: “[…] Conrado, qui et linguam theutonicam optime scivit, […]”. 46 Ibid., c. 63, 87: “illius Sobieslai ducis, exul in partibus Theuthonicis […]”; ibid., c. 63, 86: “[…] Theutoniam feliciter est reversus […]” ; for contemporary example of defining borders by language in pragmatic literacy cf. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae, V/2, nr. 679, 317. 47 Ibid., c. 65, 102: “Imperator interea cum Boemis, Theutonicis, Lombardis et aliarum nacionum […]”. 48 Ibid., c. 77, 165. 49 Ibid., c. 77, 165: “Fuit insuper dictorum Theutonicorum tirannide Boemia multum lesa […] eiectis inde Saxonibus et Theutonicis supradictis liberaretur ab eorum […]; ibid., c. 78, 169: […] eiecit edictum sub pena capitis, ut omnes Theutonici de regno exirent […]”; ibid., c. 78, 169: “Quoniam agri per regnum Boemie propter Theutonicorum tirannidem aliquibus temporibus […]”.

92

Kalhous

to follow their advice, regnum declines, since, according to Dalimil, the “Němci” always seek the extermination of the “Češi”. His hatred for “Němci” is so strong that he would prefer the daughter of a Czech peasant rather than a “German princess” be a future Bohemian princess;50 or he hails the king who has asked even Jews to kill “Němci”.51 Who are “Němci”, or “Češi” in that chronicle is revealed in the synonyms used for them: “němečský/český jazyk”, “German/ Czech language”: And he (the emperor) made himself aware of Soběslav, a brave man, who was ready to die for the honor of his people (jazyk), and started to treat him with respect/ … Once the German people in Bohemia rise,/ our dynasty loses its honor,/ as they (the Germans) betray the land and princes/ and because of them, our crown will be taken to Germany/; Germans, at the beginning, pretend to be nice,/ but once their numbers increase,/ they stop respecting their lord/ and look for a lord from their own country.52 It signals that the language became for Dalimil an important source of identification, which could have superseded other social differences and might have been used as a synonym for all those who speak it.53 That belonging to “Němci”, or “Češi” is inherited by blood might connote “kinship”, which in one instance is possibly used for “Czechs”:54 50 51

Cf. n. 60. So called Dalimil, Kronika 1, ed. Jiří Daňhelka and col., c. 80: “O královu Václavovu boji s Němci/ Král Václav ščedrý ovšem bieše,/ ale Němcě v zemi plodieše. […] A kdež Němcě potkachu,/ nos jemu uřězachu. […] Němci Čstibora míle s synem přijechu/ a bezpečenstvie jemu dachu; velmi jej čstiechu. Pak toho i s synem královí proradichu/ a do Prahy jě svázány poslachu. […] Král židóm ku brani pokynu řka: ‘Zbijete-li jě, nepočtu vám za vinu’. Židé tajně oděnie a lidu dobychu,/ a když na ně křižovníci udeřichu,/ židové křižovníky pobichu/ a na dvě stě tehdy Němcóv zbichu”. 52 Ibid., c. 68: “A ten, znamenav Soběslava, mužě udatného, že jest hotov za svého jazyka čest umřieti, počě sě k němu dobřě jmieti; […] Když němečský jazyk v Čechách vstane,/ tehdy našeho rodu všě čest stane;/ neb zradie zemi i kniežata,/ pro ně bude nášě koruna do Němec vzata./ Němciť sě najprvé krotie,/ ale, jakž sě rozplodie,/ tehdy o svéj hospodě netbají,/ z své země pána sobě hledají.”; cf. ibid., 97: “O Albrechtovi, říšském králi, vrahu českém/ Na léto vrah český Albrecht do Čech počě jíti, chtě přěkotem český jazyk zahladiti./ Chlapi s kosami s ním jdiechu,/ ti všě obilé sieci chtiechu,/ aby Čechy hladem sě rozlezli/ a Švábi by u pustú zemi vešli”. 53 Cf. Jaroslav Mezník, “Němci a Češi v Kronice tak řečeného Dalimila,” [Germans and Czechs in the Chronicle of the so-called Dalimil] Časopis Matice moravské 112 (1993), 3–10, here especially 6. The equation language = nation has most probably Biblical roots. 54 Dalimil, Kronika, c. 63: “V radu počě Němcě pojímati,/ pro to bratr jeho Vladislav jě sě naň hněvati. Pojem jej do komňaty samého,/ vecě: ‘Báťo, třěba mi s tobú mluviti cos tajného’. Vecě: ‘Báťo, proč druhem sě nekážeš, že Němcóm jíti z dvoru nekážeš?/ Či nepomníš, co

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

93

He started to invite the Germans to his council/ and because of that, his brother Vladislav became annoyed with him. He invited him into his chambers/ and told him: Lord, I need to talk to you privately. Lord, why do you not order the Germans to leave your court?/ Don’t you remember all the bad things they brought about?/ How the Germans betrayed our kin … But Bořivoj was not able to follow this policy / and started again to invite the Germans into his land. Even though “Němci” also lived in Bohemia, where they came as settlers, or experts especially during the thirteenth century, they had their own basic territory – therefore, they could be invited to Bohemia, or repelled: After him, Spytihněv, his son, became prince,/ who immediately showed his anger towards Germans/ and in three days, he expelled them from the land…. After he weeded all Germans from the land/ and all other foreigners/ as nettle from a garden …55 A good relationship with the Germans only leads to troubles, in the view of Dalimil: He began to defame the Czechs and the numbers of Germans started to grow in the land…. As he started to persecute his brother and invited the Germans into the land./ Once the Poles noted / that the Czechs did not respect their prince,/ they attacked their land / and thoroughly devastated it./ The Czechs with their prince defeated them,/ but once they did that,/ they also expelled their prince from the land,/ saying: “To you, Czech souls smell,/ go off to Germany, you German muzzle.56 jsú nám zlého učinili,/ kako jsú Němci náš rod zradili? […] Ale Bořivoj neumě té milosti schovati/ i jě sě opět Němcóv v zemi zváti.”; it might also mean “dynasty”. 55 Ibid., c. 48, 553: “Po tom by syn jeho knězem Spytihněv,/ ten inhed Němcóm zjevi svój hněv. / Ve třech dnech všě Němcě z země vypudi. […] Když vyple z země všě Němcě/ i všě jiné cizozemcě/ jako z zahrady kopřivy/[…]”; cf. Ibid., 69: “Ten počě mluviti,/ že, by jměl moc, chtěl by z Čech všě Němcě vypuditi. Větší menšie namluvichu,/ tak Stanimíra knězem učinichu./ Ten počě Němcóm do Čech nedati/ a káza všěm nosy řězati./ Ale když sě ve všě tvrzě uváza,/ milost, již k Němcóm jmieše, pokáza./ Jě sě Čechóm dolóv hlav puditi/ a Němcě v zemi ploditi./”. 56 Ibid., c. 69: “Ten počě na hanbu Čechóm mluviti/ a Němcóv sě jě v zemi ploditi. […] Neb ten počě bratra následovati a Němcě mocně v zemi zváti./ Polené, když to znamenachu,/ že Čechy svého knězě netbachu,/ na zemi udeřichu/ a škodu velikú učinichu./ Čechy na ně s svým knězem míle jidechu/ a bojem jě udatně podjidechu./ A když jě pobichu,/ knězě z země vypudichu/ řkúc: ‘Tobě smrdí česká dušě,/ náhle do Němec, němečská kušě!’”; Cf. n. 53.

94

Kalhous

Pavlína Rychterová convincingly argues that this strong identification with the language has its roots in the contemporary situation, when the Přemyslid dynasty, which was originally the important source of identification for the Bohemian nobility,57 died out and contemporaries had to refocus on other sources of identification.58 Surprisingly, this chronicle was also translated from Czech into German and transferred to prose during the fourteenth century, most probably by a Prague burgher of German origin.59 This man was, of course, not just a translator; he also had to deal with Dalimil’s feelings towards Germans and burghers. As Vlastimil Brom has clearly demonstrated, the translator found an effective solution for his problem: when “Němci” is mentioned in a negative context, it is transformed into vremde, “foreigners”; they remain Teutsche in neutral contexts. (The Latin translation follows mostly that German prose-translation – “Teutschen” are exchanged for “alienigenae”.)60 The story mentioned above of Udalrich and Božena provides us with an excellent example of his translation practices. Whereas in the Czech version, we read: I prefer to be happy with a Czech peasant woman, / rather than to marry a German King’s daughter, the translator into German writes: Vil mer wil ich lachin da/ mit einer bemischin puͦ rin,/ wen eines fremden koniges tochtir gewin. (Bohemian peasant girl rather than daughter of a foreign king)61 57 That it was not its unique source of identification is demonstrated in Kalhous, Bohemi, c. 3. 2. 58 Pavlína Rychterová, “The Chronicle of the so-called Dalimil and its concept of Czech identity,” in Historiography and Identity VI: Historiographies in Central and Eastern Central Europe Between Latin and Vernaculars, C. 1200–1500, eds. Pavlíny Rychterová and David Kalhous, (Turnhout, forthcoming). 59 Vlastimil Brom, “The rhymed German translation of the Old Czech chronicle of so-called Dalimil and its specific identification models compared to the original text,” in ibid. (forthcoming) 60 Conf. e.g. Anežka Vidmanová, “Nad pařížskými zlomky latinského Dalimila,” [Above the Parisian fragments of the Latin Dalimil] Slovo a smysl: časopis pro mezioborová bohemistická studia 3, č. 5 (2006), 25–67; http://slovoasmysl.ff.cuni.cz/node/97 (last access 9-11-2018). 61 Dalimil, Kronika, c. 42, 493: “Radějí sě chcu s češskú sedlkú smieti/než královnu němečskú za ženu jmieti”; Di tutsch kronik von Behem lant: die gereimte deutsche Übersetzung der Alttschechischen Dalimil-Chronik. Rhymed German translation of the Old Czech Dalimil Chronicle, ed. Vlastimil Brom (Brno, 2009), 274–275.

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

95

Yet, both author and translator admit that the “German princes” might teach Udalrich’s children “deutsch” and that it might cause “ein groz zcweiunge/ vnd dem lande zcu hant/ ein recht virderbnize bekant”.62 The prosaic German version of the chronicle not only mitigates ethnic conflicts in the chronicle, but also reduces animosity towards the burgers, which is so well documented in its original version.63 A common ‘peasant’ doesn’t give you of his own will anything for free; / reassuring you that you are his master, he is seeking a suitable moment: / As soon as he frees himself of you, / he will have you pay everything back to him with interest. / Now you can see, my lords, whether yours is a right decision / to give castles in (our) land to Germans. This is transformed as follows: Dem prager gibt man sin willin, /waz er mit dem elbogin stillin /vf wundirlich mag gehebin, /daz wil er nur von im gebin. /Dristunt spricht er: ‘Her’ /biz im sin will nit ver /kumbt bi nacht adir tag, /ob er nimer mag, /dich also vbir windin. /Ir herren, ir mogt nv vinden, /ob er gutis ratis sit: /Gebt den fromden in Behem wit /husir vnd gute burgen, /dar vf si vch irwurgen. Offensive ‘peasant’, or ‘villain’ are replaced with neutral “Prager”, and “Germans” with “fromden”.64 From our perspective, it is important that both authors have come up with different definitions of what it meant to be “Němec”, “teutsch”. Whereas the high medieval Czech chronicler followed Cosmas of Prague and defined the “Němci” by their origin and language and ascribed them affiliation towards other “Němci” without taking into consideration their birthplace, his German counterpart – by switching out “Germans” in the original so-called Dalimil for “foreigners” – largely adapted and transformed that categorization; for him, the border led through those who lived in Bohemia and those who came from outside. The source of identification was for the translator the land, and not the language. 62 Di tutsch kronik von Behem lant, 276–277. 63 Dalimil, Kronika, c. 98: “Chlap svú volú tobě ničs nedá,/ pánkajě tobě, svého času hledá./ Moci-liť bude kdy s tě býti,/ kážeť své i s lichvú zaplatiti./ Juž vidíte, páni, dobré-li jste rady,/ dávajúce Němcóm v zemi hrady”. 64 Based on Brom’s Di tutsch kronik von Behem lant. The rhymed German translation.

96

Kalhous

This is, however, not a completely new strategy. If we return back to an earlier time, to the chronicle of Gerlach of Milevsko, written at the beginning of the thirteenth century, we can follow a similar pattern. Of course, Gerlach identified himself with the Christian community, civitas,65 or with his Premonstratensian order.66 But, although Gerlach was born in the Rhineland and came to Bohemia in his late teens, he included himself among the Bohemi: After the consecration of Bishop Henry in that summer, our noblemen, motivated by a long-lasting hatred, started to persecute Duke Frederick and then expelled him from the land. Then they elected Prince Conrad, also called Otto, of Moravia, about whom we spoke a lot, and with him, they besieged and captured Prague.67 “Bohemian” identity was in his case, as well, based on identification with the land and its polity, not necessarily with the language. Both strategies of identification and “othering” reflect the interests of different social groups and their seeking of, or struggle for legitimacy. Both also remind us remarkably of two different models of nationalism, which are traditionally associated with Western, or Central and Eastern Europe respectively and labeled with moral epithetes. Whereas positive Western “civic nationalism” is based on the identification with the state and every citizen is theoretically a member of a national group, in the case of negative “ethnic nationalism”, 65 Gerlacus, Annales, 467, a. 1175, “Pro his et aliis operibus misericordiae credimus eum invenisse misericordiam apud patrem misericordiarum, domnum deum nostrum. Ibid., 499, a. 1184, Verum inter haec quis putas fuerit affectus in nobis videntibus aegrotare patrem nostrum, et talem patrem, qui per euangelium omnes nos genuerat”. 66 Gerlacus, Annales, 486, a. 1178, “[…] tum in omnibus ecclesiis nostri iuris […]”; ibid., 488: 1178, […] secundum disciplinam ordinis nostri[…]”. 67 Gerlacus, Annales, 481, a. 1182, “Igitur post consecrationem episcopi Henrici eadem aestate Bohemi, nostri maiores natu, persecutionem diutinis odiis conflatam excitaverunt in ducem Fridericum et eiicientes eum extra terram mille persecutum opprobriis, Kunradum Moraviensem, qui et Otto, de quo supra multa diximus, sibi eligunt in principem, cum quo Pragam multo tempore obsident et tandem obtinent.” Cf. Ibid., 470, a. 1175, “Inde profecti sequenti die natalis domni inciderunt custodias Mediolanensium, a quibus omnes quidem nostri in fugam conuersi, multi uero sunt capti atque in Mediolano tamdiu tenti, quamdiu speraretur, quod uitam suam possent pecunia redimere, quod ubi desperatum est, dimissi ad terram suam sunt redire permissi. Reliqui uero, qui tale discrimen euaserant, mercede nautica stagnam transfretantes Cumanum per aliam uiam et inmanissimam in Alpibus niuem reversi sunt in Ratisponam ac deinde in terram suam. Redditi uero suis delitescebant, ubi poterant, nec usquam audebant apparere curiae, quamdiu Zobezlaus dominabatur Boemie”.

The Imaging of ‘ Theutonici ’ in Bohemian Medieval Sources

97

it is the shared origin, culture and language which are determinative of the nationality. Medieval people were not citizens, but subjects. This analysis of selected sources of Bohemian origin shows that these definitions of belonging and these strategies of identification were pre-modern and might have been established as a result of a conflict among different social groups in one region. They might well have found different definitions of belonging a useful tool for confirming or disproving the legitimacy of others.

part 2 Polish Views Regarding Germans in the Middle Ages – Hagiographical and Historiographical Sources

∵

chapter 6

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire in Polish Historiography until the 13th Century Andrzej Pleszczyński The question of Polish opinions about Germany in the Middle Ages is still a poorly researched area; the same is true as to German opinions about Poland in the same period. This adds to the weight and significance of to the conference that has given rise to this collection of articles. Although there are works which, to a greater or lesser extent, address the subject formulated in the title of this paper, they were written relatively long ago, during a time when historiography was heavily influenced by tendencies to “nationalize” analyses of the past, however distant. Today, we are in a position to attempt to achieve the greatest possible objectivity.1 Not only is the question of the perception of the Germans and the medieval Roman Empire in Poland intriguing, but it also has a considerable multifaceted significance. It is enough to mention here that the oldest writings have always constituted a kind of reference basis for more recent texts and views, including modern ones. The matter does not merely concern literary tradition. Opinions about strangers say a lot about the people who formed such judgments.2 Therefore, 1 Cf. a summary of older Polish research in: Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Poglądy polskich kronikarzy średniowiecznych na Niemcy i stosunki polsko-niemieckie,” [The Views of Polish medieval chroniclers on Germany and Polish-German relations] in Wokół stereotypów Niemców i Polaków, ed. Wojciech Wrzesiński, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis. Historia 114 (Wrocław, 1993), 15–72. The problem has not been exhausted in: Andrzej Pleszczyński, The Birth of a Stereotype. Polish Rulers and their Country in German Writings c. 1000 A.D. (Boston-Leiden, 2011); and: ibid., Przekazy niemieckie o Polsce i jej mieszkańcach w okresie panowania Piastów [German sources about Poland and its inhabitants during the Piast rule] (Lublin, 2016); also: Jerzy Strzelczyk, “Deutsch-polnische Schicksalgemeinschaft in gegenseitigen Meinungen im Mittelalter,” in Mittelalter – eines oder viele?/ Średniowiecze – jedno czy wiele?, ed. Sławomir Moździoch, Wojciech Mrozowicz, and Stanisław Rosik (Wrocław, 2010), 111–126; or: Thomas Wünsch, Deutsche und Slawen im Mittelalter: Beziehungen zu Tschechen, Polen, Südslawen und Russen (Munich, 2008). 2 For more on the subject e.g.: Alois Wierlacher, “Mit anderen Augen oder: Fremdheit als Ferment. Überlegungen zur Begründung einer intellektuellen Hermeneutik deutscher Literatur,” in Das Fremde und das Eigene: Prologomena zu einer interkulturellen Germanistik © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_007

102

Pleszczyński

the question is vital. Before it is explored in more detail, a word of explanation is in order about why the 13th century constitutes a dividing line in this discussion. Very briefly, the close of the 13th century ended the era during which the Piast state had emerged, and it was subsequently divided into several sovereign provinces. In the 14th century, the Kingdom of Poland came into existence and the new state soon began its expansion towards the east; it also became involved in confrontations with the Teutonic Order. Facing problems that were entirely different from the ones which had existed earlier, the Polish elites changed quite considerably, and simultaneously their views about the world were also transformed.3 The subject of this paper, even though it has been narrowed down from a broader one, is still relatively extensive and multifaceted, so it can only be presented here in the manner of a sketch. The structure of the discussion will mainly be based upon chronicles, while information from the Polish annals will also provide some help. The sources will be presented and analyzed chronologically; only the references which are most important for the subject will be discussed. In view of this introduction, to begin our actual reflections we should remark that our knowledge about this subject concerns almost only the elites. We know very little about how Germans were perceived by ordinary Poles during the earlier period of the Middle Ages, because prior to the 14th century we have no appropriate text that could confirm any given perception. Only the old ethnic terms are evidence of some general assessments or value judgments. For instance, the Polish and Slavic word “Niemcy [Germans]” is connected with the inability to understand because it denotes people who do not or cannot speak, unlike the Slavs, and whose words are comprehensible.4 It happened that for a very long time this term was used to denote all the inhabitants of (Munich, 1985), 3–28; Elke M. Geenen, Soziologie des Fremden. Ein gesellschaftstheoretischer Entwurf (Wiesbaden, 2002), 28–38. 3 This change is poorly understood in Polish historical thought, although the Piast and Jagiellonian orientations are noticed, but the first is treated only in terms of hostile resistance to Germany and attachment to the so-called western territories, the latter is seen as the idea of Polish patronage over the Ruthenian and Lithuanian territories and friendly neutrality towards Germany. The issue is present only in political thought without serious reference to older history – see e.g.: Jacek Kubera, “Polska ‘piastowska’ vs ‘jagiellońska’. Odmienność wizji relacji z Niemcami jako determinant poglądów na polską politykę zagraniczną” [Poland of the ‘Piasts’ vs of the ‘Jagiellonians’. The different vision of relations with Germany as a determinant of views on Polish foreign policy], Acta Politica Polonica 38/4 (2016), 65–80. 4 Aleksander Brückner, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language] (Warszawa, 1985), 360; Krystyna Długosz-Kurczabowa, Wielki słownik etymologiczno-historyczny języka polskiego [A great etymological and historical dictionary of the Polish language] (Warsaw, 2008), 446–447.

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

103

Western Europe, because all ordinary people in Poland and also in Slavdom could not distinguish the westerners from each other. This seems to say much about the difficulties for the Poles to have any objective knowledge of their western neighbors. Although the sources were written solely by clergymen from the circles associated with those in authority, their opinions were in some way influenced by the above-mentioned cultural strangeness between the Poles and the Germans. This influence can easily be seen in the oldest known chronicle written in the Polish lands.5 Its author is unknown, but in Poland he was traditionally believed to have come from France, so he was given the name Gallus Anonymus.6 In his chronicle, references to the Germans and their country are relatively rare and more modest than the information about other neighbors of the Piast state: Rus, Hungary and Czechia (Bohemia); only the pagan Baltic people receive markedly less attention. This phenomenon is accompanied by the conviction, expressed in Anonymus’ text, that although Poland respects the Empire as the supreme authority in the Christian world, the Piast state has no strong ties to the system headed by the emperor. Poland belonged to a different political structure, which was poorly connected to the so-called West as represented by Germany, but was instead more closely linked with the Slavic countries and Hungary. This way of thinking can already be noticed in the preface to the chronicle, where, while enumerating the western neighbors of the Piast country, the author only laconically mentions Saxony.7 At the same time, Anonymus devotes considerable attention to the position of Poland within the Slavic lands, the northernmost areas of which it supposedly covered; he also writes about, in rather great detail, the lands of the southern Slavs.

5 Galli Anonimi chronicae et gestae ducum sive principum Polonorum, ed. Karol Maleczyński (Kraków, 1952); English translation: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, eds. Paul W. Knoll, Frank Schaer (Budapest, 2003); more about this edition: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “O nowym łacińsko-anglojęzycznym wydaniu Galla i samej jego kronice,” [About the new Latin-English edition of Gall and his chronicle itself], Roczniki Historyczne 70 (2004), 205–15; about the chronicler: Thomas N. Bisson, “On Not Eating Polish Bread in Vain. Resonance and Conjuncture in thee Deeds of the Princes of Poland (1109–1113),” Viator. Medieval and Rennaissance Studies 29 (1998), 275–289; Piotr Oliński, “Am Hofe Bolesław Schiefmunds. Die Chronik des Gallus Anonymus,” in Die Hofgeschichtsschreibung im mittelalterlichen Europa: Projekte und Forschungsprobleme, ed. Rudolf Schieffer and Jarosław Wenta (Toruń, 2006), 93–105. 6 Lately on this subject: Tomasz Jasiński, O pochodzeniu Galla Anonima [On the descent of Gall Anonym] (Cracow, 2008); cf.: Johanes Fried, “Kam der Gallus Anonymus aus Bamberg”, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 65 (2009), 497–545. 7 Galli Anonimi chronicae, 7; The Deeds of the Princes, 13.

104

Pleszczyński

Following the organization of this work and reading the part devoted to Mieszko I, we notice that it contains no information concerning the role played by Germany in the Christianization of the country – there is only a reference to Princess Dobrawa, who was supposed to have been “a very good Christian”.8 As a matter of fact, however, from a general point of view, we notice that the chronicle does not mention any “helpers” as far as the baptism/conversion of the country was concerned: neither the Czechs, nor even the papacy. Anonymus’ reports about Mieszko I’s reign are very limited. It was only the times of the next ruler, Bolesław Chrobry (the Brave), which receive more extensive coverage, including references to the issue in question. The second of the historical Piasts was an extremely important figure for Anonymus: the chronicler’s depiction of Bolesław the Brave became the portrait of a model monarch. It is significant that the extraordinarily detailed description of Bolesław the Brave’s reign does not contain a single word about his dozen-year-long heavy battles with Henry II. The notation that Bolesław “brought the uncontrollable Saxons under control with such might that he marked Poland’s borders with iron posts in the Saale river in the middle of their lands”9 may be a certain echo of the wars. However, it was one thing to refer to the Saxons as Bolesław’s enemies; to refer to the German King and Emperor Henry II in this way would have been quite another. One could also surmise that the conflict was “forgotten” due to the logic of the narrative constructed by Anonymus. After all, the author clearly intended to present Bolesław the Brave as Otto III’s friend in his description of the magnificent welcome extended to the emperor in Poland in 1000. What was referred to as the Congress of Gniezno plays an important part in the narrative of the chronicle. The description of the event is extraordinarily detailed. Emperor 8 Galli Anonimi chronicae, 15; The Deeds of the Princes, 29; see also: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Dąbrówka ‘christianissima’ i Mieszko poganin (Thietmar, IV, 55–56, Gall I, 5–6) [Dąbrówka ‘Christianissima’ and Mieszko the Pagan],” in ‘Nihil superfluum esse’. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane profesor Jadwidze Krzyżaniakowej, ed. Jerzy Strzelczyk and Józef Dobosz (Poznań, 2000), 85–93; more broadly about the problem of a woman influencing the pagan to baptism, e.g.: Martin Homza, “The Role of Saint Ludmila, Doubravka, Saint Olga and Adelaide in the Conversions of their Countries (The Problem of ‘Mulieres Suadentes’, Persuading Women),” in Early Christianity in Central and East Europe, ed. Przemysław Urbańczyk (Warsaw, 1997), 187–202. 9 Galli Anonimi chronicae, 16–17; The Deeds of the Princes, 33, see also: Gotthold Rhode, “Die eisernen Grenzsäulen Boleslaws des Tapferen von Polen. Wege einer Legende,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 8/3 (1960), 331–253; the author tried to find out historical and philological (339) grounding of Anonymus’ words, but he did not notice their symbolic meaning, which reveals the exaggeration of the chronicler’s statement, because driving in his border marks in the middle of the enemy’s country meant the enemy’s humiliation or even his mastery of the earth marked in this way – see: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Unity of spatial order, social and tradition of the origins of the people,” Przegląd Historyczny 3 (1986), 445–66.

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

105

Otto, whom the chronicler calls the Red (Rufus), came to St. Adalbert’s tomb “for prayer and reconciliation and also to meet the famous Bolesław.”.10 It is unclear what is meant by “reconciliation” since the earlier text does not mention any feud.11 It is neither possible nor necessary to elaborate on the chronicler’s description of the meeting in the year 1000 – this is a separate subject in itself. However, it needs to be mentioned, in connection with the problem discussed here, that Anonymus emphasizes the fact that Bolesław was proclaimed king by Otto III, not by the pope, who supposedly merely confirmed the Emperor’s conferment of the title at some later date.12 Nevertheless, the significance of this statement, which might imply that Bolesław the Brave and his country were somehow more subordinate to the Empire, is in many ways weakened by the chronicler. First of all, while discussing the precious gifts offered to the noble guest, he stresses that Otto received them all as a goodwill gesture and not as a tribute due to him.13 This is an important distinction since the payment of tribute indicated the payer’s lower position and implied dishonourable submission,14 from which the chronicler openly dissociates himself. It seems that by contradicting the views about the Piasts’ submission to paying tribute to the German Empire, which were familiar to him, Anonymus in a determined way attempts to emphasize the high esteem accorded to Bolesław the Brave by Otto III. After a lengthy passage describing the magnificence of the Piast court, the chronicler observes that the Emperor was so impressed by the Polish ruler’s generosity 10 There is a large literature on the issue; lately the subject was summarized by: Roman Michałowski, The Gniezno Summit. The Religious Premises of the Founding of the Archbishopric of Gniezno (Leiden, 2016) – polemical comments in relation to many of these interpretations can be found in: Dariusz A. Sikorski, Kościół w Polsce za Mieszka I i Bolesława Chrobrego. Rozważania nad granicami poznania historycznego [Church in Poland under Mieszko I and Bolesław the Brave. Considerations on the boundaries of historical cognition] (Poznań, 2011), 332ff.; see also: Knut Görich, “Ein Erzbistum in Prag oder in Gnesen?,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 40 (1991), 10–27; Gerard Labuda, “O badaniach nad zjazdem gnieźnieńskim w roku 1000. Spostrzeżenia i zastrzeżenia,” Roczniki Historyczne 68 (2002), 105–56. 11 Galli Anonimi chronicae, 18–19; The Deeds of the Princes, 35–37. 12 Johannes Fried, Otto III. und Boleslaw Chrobry. Das Widmungsbild des Aachener Evangeliars, der “Akt von Gnesen” und das frühe polnische und ungarische Königtum (Stuttgart, 1989). 13 Galli Anonimi chronicae; The Deeds of the Princes, cf.: Die Annales Quedlinburgenses, ed. Martina Giese, MGH, SS rer. Ger. 72 (Hannover, 2004), 510–12 – where it was written that Bolesław Chrobry had gathered a proper tribute for the emperor, but Otto did not want the tribute. The source suggests vaguely that this was due to the pious moment and respect for the burial place of Saint Adalbert. 14 Pleszczyński, The Birth of a Stereotype, 65–71.

106

Pleszczyński

that he believed the number of gifts offered by the latter to be a miracle.15 This is a significant statement since we know that at that time a ruler’s power and even his position in the hierarchy were assessed according to his wealth and generosity.16 Therefore, the chronicler’s position towards the institution of the Empire is characterized by considerable ambivalence: on the one hand, he realizes the emperor’s political and legal significance – he considered the ruler of the empire as a grantor of the crown that Boleslaw Chrobry had received; on the other hand, he avoided writing at length on the existence of numerous and serious links between the Piast’ state and the Empire ruled by the Ludolfings and later the Salier dynasties. The mentioning that “Mieszko [II, the son of Boleslaw Chrobry] had already married the sister of Emperor Otto III during his father’s lifetime, and begotten a son by her, Casimir (that is, Charles), the restorer of Poland”17 is therefore Anonymus’ characteristic way of descibing the oldest Polish-German relations. The chronicler did not write about the meaning of this marriage, and what lay behind the second name of the grandson of Bolesław Chrobry, which obviously refers to the great Frankish emperor. He also never mentions the name of Rycheza – not the sister, but in fact the niece of Otto III,18 although he had a very positive opinion of her. 15 Galli Anonimi chronicae, 21; The Deeds of the Princes, 39; Gert Althoff, “Symbolische Kommunikation zwischen Piasten und Ottonen,” in Polen und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahre, ed. Michael Borgolte (Berlin, 2002), 305–306, suggested that this description was an ironical overstatement. But it is very doubtful – see: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Gall as a Credible Historian, or why the Biography of Boleslav the Brave is as authentic and far from grotesque as Boleslav the Wrymouth’s,” in Gallus Anonymous and his chronicle in the context of twelfth-century historiography from the perspective of last research, ed. Krzysztof Stopka (Cracow, 2010), 19–33. 16 See e.g.: Widukindi res gestae saxonicae, ed. Albert Bauer and Reinhard Rau, FGST 4: Quellen zur Geschichte der Kaiserzeit (Darmstadt, 1975), 16–183, here 62: “Deinde [king Henry I – A.P.] videns adolescentem [of count Giselbert] valde industriam, genere ac potestate, divitiis quoque clarum, liberaliter eum coepit habere, ac postremo desponsata sibi filia nomine Gerberga affinitate pariter cum amicitia iunxit eum sibi, sublegato omni ei Lotharii regno.” 17 Galli Anonimi chronicae, 40: “secundus Mescho […] qui iam vivente partre sororem tertii Ottonis imperatoris uxorem acceperat, de qua Kazimirum, id est Karolum, restauratorum Polonie, procrearat”; Cf.: The Deeds of the Princes, 73; see also: Kazimierz Jasiński, Genealogia Piastów [Genealogy of the Piasts] (Wrocław, 1992), 129. 18 Eduard Hlawitschka, “Königin Richeza von Polen – Enkelin Herzog Konrads von Schwaben, nicht Kaiser Ottos II?,” in Institutionen, Kultur und geselschaft im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Josef Fleckenstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Lutz von Fenske, Werner Rösener, and Thomas Zotz (Sigmaringen, 1984), 221–244.

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

107

Though she gave her son a liberal upbringing, and governed the kingdom as honorably as a woman could, she was driven out of the kingdom by traitors who bore her ill will. [And later] [these villains] were afraid that he [i.e. Casimir] would take revenge for the wrong his mother had suffered, so they rose up against him and forced him to quit the kingdom of Hungary. [Then] the neighboring kings and dukes rode roughshod over the portion of Poland nearest each of them, adding the cities and castles near the borders to their dominions or capturing them and leveling them to the ground.19 But there is not a word about the Germans. Apparently, Anonymus did not want – and it seems that he had to know about it – to make references to the wars of Mieszko II with Konrad II, the German intervention in Poland, and the discontinuation of the Piast monarchy brought about by the Empire’s ruler. Instead, he made the emperor a patron of Casimir in a certain sense. So after leaving Hungary, the son of Rycheza Rycheza, Polish Duchess and Queen, niece of Otto III (d. 1063) “set out with great joy and hastened to the land of the Germans [regio Teutonicorum], where he joined his mother and the emperor”20 (who is not mentioned by name). Casimir remained some time among the Germans [apud Theutonicos] … [but soon] decided to return to Poland, [although] the emperor made his plea, by begging him to stay with him and by offering him a quite splendid duchy.21 This briefly described attitude of Gallus Anonymus to the “German question” can be confirmed when we read further passages of his work, with its descriptions of the reign of the next Piasts: Bolesław the Generous and Władysław Herman. Regarding the first of these – let us remember, who was crowned (which outraged the German court)22 – the chronicler does not mention that he became an opponent of the emperor, although there is no mention as well

19 20 21 22

Galli Anonymi cronicae, 41; Deeds of the Princes, 77–79. Galli Anonimi chronicae, 42; Deeds of the Princes, 77. Galli Anonimi chronicae, 44; Deeds of the Princes, 81. Wiponis gesta Chuonradi II. imperatoris, ed. Werner Trillmilch, FSGA 11: Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der Hamburgischen Kirche und des Reiches (Darmstadt, 1978), 522–613, 42.; Die Annales Quedlinburgenses, 578.

108

Pleszczyński

that the pope supported him at the coronation, what is usually stressed by Polish historiography.23 Also the relations of Władysław Herman to the Empire are described very laconically by Gallus Anonymus: the prince would marry a (nameless!) sister of Henry III (in fact IV),24 and one of the daughters of this marriage “got married to one of the compatriots [of her mother]”.25 That is all. A significant change occurs in the narrative of the chronicle only at the moment when Anonymus’ account comes to the times of Bolesław Krzywousty (the Wrymouth), and specifically the war he waged against Henry V. The chronicler calls him emperor, although in the year 1109 the German ruler had not actually succeeded in being crowned in Rome. Our author in fact seems to equate the position of the Roman-German king with the imperial title, or even fails to recognize the existence of the institution of the German Kingdom, hence we have his manner of counting German monarchs according to the order of their taking over the Roman throne – Henry IV is for him the third member of the dynasty bearing this name, and Henry V – the fourth. This circumstance is important to our considerations, because it reveals that the addressees of all his opinions concerning the emperors were by no means the German rulers – as usually referred to in literature, especially Polish26 – but the emperors whose center of power was (in Anonymus’ opinion) in Rome. Let us now turn to the description of the aforementioned struggles of the Polish and German rulers, when Henry V entered Poland in 1109 with his army. An important reason for the war, the chronicler writes, was that the Polish duke Bolesław the Wrymouth firmly refused to pay a tribute to Henry and to yield to 23

Especially the older – see e.g.: Jerzy Wyrozumski, Historia Polski do roku 1505 [History of Poland up to 1505] (Warszawa, 1983), 98; but differently: Tadeusz Grudziński, Bolesław Śmiały-Szczodry i biskup Stanisław [Bolesław Bold-Generous and bishop Stanisław] (Warszawa, 1986), 62; and Krzysztof Skwierczyński, Recepcja idei gregoriańskich w Polsce do początku XIII wieku [Reception of Gregorian ideas in Poland until the beginning of the 13th century] (Wrocław, 2005), 63. 24 It was Judith of Swabia (1054–1105?), the youngest daughter of emperor Henry III – Mechthild Black-Veldtrup, “Die Töchter Heinrichs III. und der Kaiserin Agnes,” ‘Vinculum Societatis’. Festschrift für Joachim Wollasch, ed. Franz Neiske (Sigmaringendorf, 1991), 36–57. 25 Galli Anonymi cronicae, 64; Deeds of the Princes, 117. 26 In principle, every synthetic account of Polish history, even at the academic level, shows the war of 1109 as a fight between the Piast state and the German state. Simultaneously, often in the past, the bridge was mistakenly laid down between the early medieval battles, Poland’s conflict with the Teutonic Knights, and modern wars – see e.g.: Gerard Labuda, Polska granica zachodnia – tysiąc lat dziejów politycznych [Poland’s Western Border – A Thousand Years of Political History] (Poznań, 1971).

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

109

his will.27 Anonymus, however, attributed to Bolesław a declaration that if the emperor had amicably asked for money or armed support to be given “in aid of the Church of Rome”, he would have “received no less aid and counsel [from Bolesław] than Henry’s “forebears did from ours [i.e. the Polish]”.28 The above mentioned ambivalent attitude of the chronicler towards Germany appears here again, when he admits the general subordination of Poland to the Roman Empire, which is confirmed here by the recognition of Poland’s ruler as Henry V’s “vassal” (miles).29 Anonymus opposed, however, closer relationships between the two monarchies, for that could be used as justification for the Empire’s interference in Poland’s internal affairs. This was obvious for the chronicler, which is why the emperor, when he “proudly”, and “overwhelmed with anger”30 enters the land of Piasts, is presented as tyrant, a ruler violating natural law. Bolesław the Wrymouth decided, therefore, to fight “for Poland’s freedom (pro libertate Poloniae)”, because he did not want to pay a tribute and bear the disgrace of bondage.31 In Anonymus’ view, he did that justifiably and successfully. In contrast, the emperor acted dishonestly, e.g. he allegedly took hostages (as warranty of truce) and then used them perfidiously as “live shields” for his troops. Despite all adversities, the Piast warriors bravely resisted “the aggression of the Germans,”32 and did it successfully because the German monarch behaved like a tyrant. The Polish duke, even in the opinion of the subjects of Henry V (sic!), appeared to be an appropriate ruler, fighting in defense of the order of the world.33 It is worth noting that even the nature of the land owned by Bolesław became, in the opinion of the chronicler, a mode of defense for its rightful ruler: swamps and forests hindered attackers from moving around the country, and flies and fierce peasants (rustici mordaces) attacked the enemy.34 Especially 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

In fact, there were many reasons for the conflict: Zbigniew Dalewski, Ritual and Politics. Writing the History of a Dynamic Conflict in Medieval Poland (Boston-Leiden, 2008) 13–40; Przemysław Wiszewski, ‘Domus Bolezlai’. Values and social identity in dynastic traditions of medieval Poland (c.966–1138), (Leiden-Boston, 2010), 297ff. Galli Anonimi chronicae, 130: “quodsi bonitate, non ferociate pecuniam vel milites in auxiliam Romanae ecclesiae postulasse non munus auxilii vel consilii forsan apud nos, quam tu antecessores apud nostros imperatrares”; cf. The Deeds of the Princes, 227–29. Galli Anonymi cronicae, 130; cf. The Deeds of the Princes, 227ff. Galli Anonymi cronicae, 125; also: 130; on the anger of the ruler see: Gerd Althoff, “Ira regis. A History of Royal Anger,” in Anger’s Past. The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein (Ithaca/London, 1998), 57–74. Galli Anonimi chronicae, 130, 134; The Deeds of the Princes, 227, 233. Galli Anonymi cronicae, 131: “impetus Alemanorum”. Galli Anonymi cronicae, 139; The Deeds of the Princes, 233. Galli Anonymi cronicae, 140; The Deeds of the Princes, 245.

110

Pleszczyński

this last element of Anonymus’ topical structure, sometimes interpreted as a manifestation of the “patriotic uprising of the Polish people” (sic!),35 reveals clearly how much the chronicler idealized his story, in order to give Bolesław the qualities of a perfect ruler.36 As a result, even the warriors of Henry V came to admire the virtues of Bolesław, acknowledging the watchfulness of divine protection over him and putting together a song in his honor.37 No wonder that the emperor, who “had thought to crush Poland’s ancient liberty,”38 could not face such a great monarch and he only “had his triumph in returning from Poland, when memorably he brought back mourning for joy, and corpses for tribute.”39 Again, however, there is a certain ambivalence in relation to the emperor: the chronicler does not shy away from painting his portrait in dark colours; he writes about him as an illegal invader, a perfidious man who did not hesitate to send hostages to their death.40 Bolesław “feared him little when he was around, but without a doubt even less when he was not there.”41 However, in another place in his work, our author states that the Polish ruler had concluded: “Let friendship with the emperor be framed,/ Fraternal concord, too, as justly aimed”.42 These words placed in the hymn – the prologue to the last book of the chronicle – were left without any justification, simply a comment in the main text of the chronicle, perhaps because the writing of the work was interrupted between 1113 and 1114 and it was never resumed. However, if that was the situation, one can say that for the chronicler, the ruler of the Empire turned out to be a negative hero when he was fighting with Bolesław; but when the situation changed, that former perfidious person

35

36 37 38

39

40 41 42

In the past: Wyrozumski, Historia Polski, 102; but again, similar statements have been published not so long ago – see: Henryk Samsonowicz, Andrzej Wyczański, and Jerzy Tazbir, Historia Polski [History of Poland] (Warsaw, 2007), 55; where, when commenting on the phrase of the Anonymus, one reads about the “early form of patriotism”. Who, according to the old topos, should control the nature of the country – more about it e.g.: Henry A. Meyers and Herwig Wolfram, Medieval Kingship (Chicago, 1982), 236. Galli Anonymi cronicae, 138ff.; The Deeds of the Princes, 241–243. The Deeds of the Princes, 247; Galli Anonymi cronicae, 141: “libertatem antiquam Poloniae subigere cogitavit”; Cf.: Sławomir Gawlas, “Der Blick von Polen auf das mittelalterliche Reich” in Heilig – Römisch – Deutsch. Das Reich im mittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Bernd Schneidmüller, Stefan Weinfurter (Dresden, 2006), 266–285, at 273. Galli Anonymi cronicae, 141, 143 – see: Wiszewski, Domus Bolezlai, 319ff.; also: Marita Blattmann, “Ein Unglück für sein Volk. Der Zusammenhang zwischen Fehlverhalten des Königs und Volkswohl in Quellen des 7.–12. Jahrhunderts,” Frühmittelalterlich Studien 30 (1996), 80–102. The Deeds of the Princes, 251; Galli Anonymi cronicae, 134. Ibid.; The Deeds of the Princes, 251. Ibid., 219; Galli Anonymi cronicae, 125.

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

111

became a desirable political partner with whom a friendly relationship (amicitia)43 would elevate the importance and prestige of the Polish ruler. There is one more thing to be noted and considered here. In the chronicle, several different names are used for Germans. Thus the term Alemanni is used when describing a situation of conflict with the Polish ruler and it espresses something negative: fight, aggression; the usual word “Teutons” (i.e.: Germans), on the other hand, is found in neutral or favorably inclined texts. It should also be added that the term was rather vague and, as a rule, the chronicler uses the words Saxons [and Saxony] to refer to Poland’s western neighbours, just as the country, Germany – Teutonia, did not exist in the chronicler’s accounts,44 for to him the nation – the Teutons, German people, were associated generally with the Roman Empire and the highest authority in the Christian World. But, as mentioned above, in situations of hostility and war, this term is replaced with Alemanni. The style of referring to the Germans as Alemanni in situations of conflict was copied from Gallus Anonymus (along with much other content) by the first Polish-born chronicler of Poland’s history, who lived about one hundred years later.45 Like his predecessor, Vincent Kadłubek (pol. Wincenty) was not 43 On the phenomenon see: Gerd Althoff, “Amicitia [Friendship] as relationship between states and people,” Debating the Middle Ages: Issues and readings, ed. Lesster K. Little and Barbara H. Rosenwein (Oxford, 1998), 191–210; Verena Epp, ‘Amicitia’. Zur Geschichte personaler, sozialer, politischer und geistlicher Beziehungen im frühen Mittelalter, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 44, (Stuttgart, 1999); and eadem, “Rituale frühmittelalterlicher amicitia,” in Formen und Funktionen öffentlichen Kommunikation im Mittelalter, ed. Gerd Althoff, Vorträge und Forschungen 51 (Sigmaringen, 2001), 11–24. 44 Which is somewhat natural, because we can speak about the existence of the German nation only in the modern period. The terms “Germany” and “German” in relation to the Middle Ages are artificial and we use them out of necessity – more about the problem: Joachim Ehlers, “Schriftkultur, Ethnogenese und Nationsbildung in ottonischer Zeit,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 23 (1989), 302–317; To a large extent, this comment applies to all European nations – see: Bernd Schneidmüller, “Reich-Volk-Nation: Die Enstehung des Deutschen Reiches und der deutschen Nation im Mittelalter,” in Mittelalterliche “nationes” – neuzeitliche Nationen. Probleme der Nationenbildung in Europa, ed. Almut Bues (Wiesbaden, 1995), 73–101. 45 Mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem Kronika polska / Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH, nova series 11, (Kraków, 1994); the Latin-German edition: Die Chronik der Polen des Magisters Vincentius, ed. Eduard Mühle, FSGA 48, (Darmstadt, 2014); more about the chronicler and his work: Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje bajeczne Mistrza Wincentego Kadłubka [Polish fairy tales of Master Wincenty Kadłubek] (Wrocław, 2002); and collections of studies: ‘Onus Athlanteum’. Studia nad kroniką biskupa Wincentego [Studies on the chronicle of Bishop Wincenty], ed. Andrzej Dąbrówka and Witold Wojtowicz (Warszawa, 2009); or: Writing History in Medieval Poland. Bishop Vincentius of Cracow and the ‘Chronica Polonorum’, ed. Darius von Güttner-Sporzyński, (Turnhout, 2017).

112

Pleszczyński

particularly interested in the Germanic countries or the Empire.46 He only mentions them in connection with Polish affairs and these references do not present a uniform portrait of the country or its inhabitants. The first reference which is interesting for us can be found in the introductory part of Kadłubek’s chronicle, what is called the “legendary history”. It is well known in the Polish tradition since it includes stereotypical content which was later elaborated on in both popular culture and the old historiography. According to the “legendary history”, a clash between German aggressiveness and the Polish idea of sovereignty was supposed to have occurred as early as at the dawn of the country’s history. At some vague time around the beginning, Krakow and the Polish country were allegedly ruled by Wanda, the daughter of Krakus [Krak, Grakch], the legendary founder of the city and country. The chronicle, whose author was appointed Bishop of Krakow, was written from the perspective of the new capital and the Gniezno tradition was not included.47 Wanda was supposedly so beautiful that “some Lemannic [=  Aleman] tyrant”, the ruler, possibly the emperor of the Alemanni, wanted to marry her and in this way gain the Krakow throne “intending to annihilate the people (i.e. the Poles)”. Wanda refused and the tyrant amassed a mighty army and invaded Poland. However, in the field of the decisive battle, Wanda’s exquisite beauty made the Alamanni soldiers unwilling to fight with her troops and the tyrant himself committed suicide.48 The story entered into the repertoire of the Polish national myths, and each author who retold it knew more about “Wanda, who did not want a German”. This is a separate matter, on which we need not focus. What is important here is that the idea of sovereignty was positioned at the very beginning of a presentation of the history of the country and juxtaposed with the inclinations of the “Lemannic [Aleman] tyrant”, who must have embodied the medieval Empire.49 However, the Empire as a political entity was not necessarily perceived in the same way as it is seen today, i.e. it was by no means associated with all the 46 This issue has recently been developed by Michał Tomaszek, “Die Wahrnehmung der Kaiser bei Vinzenz Kadłubek,” in Verwandtschaft – Freundschaft – Feindschaft: Politische Bindungen zwischen dem Reich und Ostmitteleuropa in der Zeit Friedrich Barbarossas, ed. Martin Wihoda and Knut Görich (Köln, 2018) 53–68. 47 See the introduction to the Polish edition of the chronicle, Mistrz Wincenty zw. Kadłubek, Kronika polska [Master Wincenty called Kadłubek, The Polish Chronicle], ed. Brygida Kürbisówna (Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków, 1996), I–CXXXI. 48 Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 12–13; the wider topic context of the story in: Banaszkiewicz, “Rüdiger von Bechelaren”. 49 Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 12.

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

113

Germans since the Saxons, for example, are treated separately. Furthermore, Kadłubek did not always treat the institution of the Holy Roman Empire with hostility or animosity. The spirit and content of the account of Otto III’s arrival in Gniezno are the same as in Gallus Anonymus’ chronicle.50 Another similarity between the two works is that Kadłubek’s whole chronicle also does not include any information about Bolesław the Brave’s dozen-year-long war with Henry II. A certain ambivalence about the Germans can only be seen when the Bishop of Krakow writes that the reason for the animosity which the Polish felt towards Richeza, considered to be Emperor Otto III’s sister, was that she supposedly elevated her compatriots (Teutari) above the local inhabitants, which allegedly led to her exile from Poland.51 This entry could be the first trace of some competition between indigenous nobility and German newcomers for high church and secular positions that clearly became the case in the 14th century. It is only in the account of the war between Bolesław the Wrymouth and Henry V in 1109 that we find a more detailed description of the Polish-German struggle. In his pompous, grandiose style, Kadłubek again refers to Bolesław the Wrymouth’s enemies using the same terms he chose previously in the case of legendary Wanda’s suitor. Henry V’s invasion into Poland is described as furoris impetus Lemanici [a furious attack by the Alemanni].52 The term Lemanni continues to be used in the course of the narrative in the chronicle, which in fact is a stylistically modified version of the account provided by Gallus Anonymus. There is only one new addition, namely the description of a battle allegedly fought between the Polish and German armies near Wrocław, in what is called in Polish Psie Pole [Hundsfeld; Dogs’ Field]. The name supposedly originated from the fact that after the battle there were so many corpses “of sad Lemannia [=Allemannia]” in the field that before anyone managed to clear them, packs of dogs from the neighborhood feasted on the dead and “were driven into some wild frenzy”.53 Undoubtedly, this is an allusion to the frenzied aggression mentioned at the very beginning of the story of the war of 1109 and, at the same time, about the “Aleman tyrant”. At that point, a description of the subsequent events in the history of the country could no longer be based upon Gallus Anonymus’ chronicle, which ends about the year 1100. The next passages reflect Vincent Kadłubek’s own 50 51 52 53

Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 39f. Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 45f. Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 103. Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 106.

114

Pleszczyński

views on the relation of the emperor to the Polish Duke Bolesław. It is intriguing that in the account of Frederick Barbarossa’s invasion of Poland in 1157,54 the emperor was called the Red Dragon (draco russus).55 It is unclear how this should be interpreted given that the term was also unclear to later historiographers. They omitted it when rewriting Vincent’s accounts in subsequent compilations of the country’s history. From the perspective of the Bishop of Krakow, the Red Dragon was, however, an extremely gentle ruler. The Emperor did not, in fact, wish to invade the country of the Piasts or become involved in the local dynastic dispute, but he had to do so, as he was being besieged by requests from Władysław II, who had been exiled from his country, and also from the latter’s wife, who was a relative of Frederick’s.56 As a matter of fact, Kadłubek holds Agnes of Babenberg in great respect, depicting her as a very energetic, ambitious and proud woman. These traits are emphasized by the nickname “tigress”, which is given to her by the Krakow chronicler.57 The concise description of Frederick Barbarossa’s campaign does not contain any scenes of violence or fighting. None took place; still, as we know, this fact would not have prevented the chronicler from inventing some if he had wished to do so. Beguiled by Władysław, Frederick sought only to force the recognition of Władysław’s right to the Polish throne. When this failed, the Emperor supposedly entreated and persuaded Bolesław the Curly, the Grand Duke at the time, to grant provinces in Poland to Władysław’s sons.58 There are no references in the chronicle to the threat which Poland faced in 1172, when Frederick prepared an invasion in order to support Władysław’s son, Bolesław the Tall, and defend the rights of Bolesław to a certain territory in Poland.59 A final work which will be discussed here is what is called the Wielkopolska or Great Poland Chronicle.60 It was created at the end of the 13th century on 54 On the historical context of the war: Magdalena Biniaś-Szkopek, Bolesław IV Kędzierzawy – książę Mazowsza i princeps [Bolesław IV the Curly – Duke of Mazovia and princeps] (Poznań, 2009), 132ff.; Robert Holtzmann, “Über der Polenfeldzug Friedrich Barbarossas vom Jahre 1157 und die Begründung der schlesischen Herzogtümer,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte Schlesiens 56 (1922), 42–55; Knut Görich, Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas. Kommunikation, Konflikt und politisches Handeln im 12. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt, 2001), 358. 55 Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 124. 56 Kazimierz Jasiński, Rodowód Piastów śląskich [A Lineage of Silesian Piasts] (Kraków, 2007), 2: 255–59. 57 Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 120–124. 58 Magistrii Vicenti dicti, 121. 59 Regesta imperii – Friedrich I IV, 2, 3, Nr 1995 – online edition: http://www.regesta-imperii .de/regesten/4-2-3-friedrich-i (14.07.2018). 60 Chronica Poloniae maioris, ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH. Series nova 8 (Warszawa, 1970).

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

115

the basis of Vincent Kadłubek’s chronicle, but it contains a great deal of new information not included in any other sources. The Wielkopolska Chronicle only became known through just two copies, which were created about a hundred years later and in places differing considerably from each other. The chronicle is a compilation, and includes texts from many previous annals as well as numerous subsequent annotations; it is therefore often difficult to establish the order in which its particular parts were written.61 The facts that its author is unknown and that it is impossible to find the original accounts make it difficult for us to assess the relationship to Germany and the Germans who are mentioned in this source. As far as the topic in my title is concerned, however, some of the content of the Wielkopolska Chronicle differs from the previously mentioned restrained comments from the Polish historiography and takes on a rather anti-German tone. Nonetheless, some passages can also be found which seem friendly towards the Germans. This results from the fact that the Chronicle is a compilation and was handled by many writers, which is why it contains annotations by various authors. A brief review, conducted chronologically, would begin with the “legendary history”. It does not contain much information that is different from what is included in Kadłubek’s chronicle; however, the differences are highly significant. Kadłubek’s megalomaniac and imperial-sounding disquisition is embellished here with the information that the vast country of Lechites extended up to Bavaria, and then after the victory over the army of Iulius Ceasar, Bavaria itself was handed over to Lestek, the ruler of the Lechites (old Poles) as the dowry for Iulia, a daughter of the Roman Emperor, whom he married.62 Accordingly, the chronicler also adds concise information about the Slavs from beyond the Oder, from the East and from the Balkans, as if these groups had once belonged to the proto-Polish ethnic community.63 The story of “Wanda-who-did-not-want-a-German” given here makes clear reference to the king of the Alemanni and not some mysterious “Lemanni”.64 The above information is evidently at variance with statements such as “the Slavs and the Germans were supposedly descended from two brothers, 61

Edward Skibiński, “Kronika Wielkopolska,” [The Chronicle of Greater Poland] Vademecum historyka mediewisty, ed. Jarosław Nikodem and Dariusz A. Sikorski (Warszawa, 2012), 260–265; see also: Henryk Łowmiański, “Kiedy powstała Kronika Wielkopolska” [When the Greater Poland Chronicle was created], Przegląd Historyczny 51/2, (1960), 398–410. 62 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 11. 63 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 4–7. 64 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 9; besides, the story as constructed puts more emphasis on the combat values of Wanda’s forces and speaks of the pledge of loyalty and homage to the Queen of Lechites made by the Alemanni warriors.

116

Pleszczyński

Jan and Kus, the descendants of Japheth, as was claimed by Isidore in Book I of Etymologies65 and Martin in The Roman Chronicle.66 Or, inhabiting lands neighbouring those of Slavs, the Germans have frequent contact with them and there are no other nations as kind and friendly to each other as the Slavs and the Germans. Also, since the people used Latin, the name Ducz was created, from which later [arose] the name Teutoni, and also [the people using Latin created] the name Slaw, from which the Slavs were named, Germans, who were also called brothers”.67 The parts of the Chronicle which describe the historical epoch up to the end of the 12th century were, in fact, mostly re-written from Vincent’s work. The story of Agnes of Babenberg is clearly embellished. She is no longer a “tigress”; she is a demonic femme fatale. In the chronicler’s view, it was her pride, uncontrollable ambition, and intrigues which led to the blinding of comes [castellan] Piotr [Piotr Włostowic], known as Dunin [the Dane], then, in turn, to the outbreak of the civil war and, finally, to the destruction of the country’s unity.68 The account of the country’s history in the 13th century contains quite overt accusations against the Germans, especially the ones living in Poland.69 Thus, there is information, repeated from the annals, about disputes resulting from the fact that the Germans refused to pay Peter’s Pence.70 These reports are accompanied by comments that they (the Germans) held high church and secular positions that should have been occupied by the locals. Such matters were mainly raised during the synod in Łęczyca by Jakub Świnka, the Archbishop

65

It is about Isidore of Seville and his ‘Etymologiae’ – The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, ed. Stephen A. Barney (Cambridge, 2006). 66 Martin of Poland (also called: Martin of Opava) – the author of Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum – see: http://www.geschichtsquellen.de/repOpus_03363.html (14.07.2018). 67 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 6–7: “Scire autem dignum est, quod Slawi et Theutonici a duobus germanis Japhet nepotibus Jano et Kuss dicuntur orte habuisse [….] Theutonici cum Slauis regna contingua habentes simul conversacione incendunt, nec aliqua gens in mundo est sibi tam communis et familiaris veluti Slaui et Theutonici. Sic eciam per Latinos ducz a quo Theutonici et Slav a quo Slawi, germani qui et fratres sunt appellati”. 68 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 49–52. 69 In the situation of rivalry for dignity and offices, a proverb was born: ‘Jak świat światem nie będzie Niemiec Polakowi bratem’ (As the world is the world, a German will not be a brother to a Pole) – see also: Labuda, “Geneza przysłowia ‘Jak świat światem nie będzie Niemiec Polakowi bratem”, 98–111. 70 Such accusations were often raised by Polish bishops. They became a subject of discussion especially during the synod in Łęczyca in 1285, called by the Archbishop of Gniezno, Jakub Świnka, At this synod laws were issued ordering preaching be done in Polish. This decision had an anti-German effect; see also: Strzelczyk, “Deutsch-polnische Schicksalsgemeinschaft,” 118.

The Image of the Germans and the Holy Roman Empire

117

of Gniezno, who was well-known for his exceptionally anti-German attitude.71 A Czech chronicler, Petr Žitavsky [Peter of Zittau] wrote that the hierarch tended to deride the Germans by claiming that they had “dogs’ heads” (canina capita).72 Although the author of the Wielkopolska Chronicle did not resort to such insults, there are numerous negative comments about the Germans in his work. A report re-written from the annals of the Poznan Archdiocese is an example of this. It is an account of an attack by the Duke of Silesia, Bolesław Rogatka, on Tomasz, the Bishop of Wrocław: driven by infernal rage and persuaded by the Germans whose advice he took, the Duke, like a thief and scoundrel, […] ordered that the bishop, while asleep in his bed, should be captured once his door was broken down, robbed of all his possessions and stripped of his clothes. He gave him lame excuses, among which the important one was that he (the bishop) had extorted money from him so as to give it to the Germans. And seeing that he (the bishop) was not used to riding a horse, as he was already quite heavy, the Germans made him ride at a trot, wearing only a shirt and short pants, devoid of other clothes. A pauper took pity on him [and gave him] a coarse gown, very tattered, and an old pair of shoes.73 It should be emphasized here that in the original account in the annals, the pauper who offered the gown to the bishop was a German. This piece of information is missing from the chronicle.74 The Wielkopolska chronicler, again re-writing from the annals, criticized Duke Bolesław Rogatka for “having been the first to bring the Germans to Poland and having granted them lands and towns to gain their support against his brothers, with whom he constantly fought. He also separated Żytawa, Zgorzelec, and many other cities and towns from the Duchy of Silesia by giving them to strangers, which was a disgrace. Who cannot see that the Germans are 71 Maciej Maciejowski, Orientacje polityczne biskupów metropolii gnieźnieńskiej [Political orientations of bishops of the Gniezno archbishopric] (Crakow, 2007), 33ff.; Tadeusz Silnicki and Kazimierz Gołąb, Arcybiskup Jakub Świnka i jego epoka [Archbishop Jakub Świnka and his epoque] (Warsaw, 1956). 72 Petra Žitavského Kronika Zbraslavská, [Petr of Žitava, The Chronicle of Zbraslav] ed. Josef Emler, FRB 4 (Praha, 1884), 82; on-line: http://147.231.53.91/src/ (14.07.2018); assigning animal features to strangers, or some imperfections of the body that make them non-human was not something special in the situation of expressing fear, dislike or even hatred. 73 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 105–106. 74 Annales capituli Posnaniensis 965–1309 [The Anal of Poznań chapter], ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH, NS 6 (Warszawa, 1962), 41. – Cf.: Strzelczyk, “Deutsch-polnische Schicksalsgemeinschaft,” 116.

118

Pleszczyński

brave and courageous men?”75 In the annals German knights who served the Piasts are praised, especially by the Silesian Piasts,76 and in this final question there is a hint of disagreement with such favorable opinions. This also corresponds to the chronicler’s description of the war fought by Przemysł II, the Duke of Greater Poland, against Brandenburg in 1271. The account stresses that the 16-year-old Duke of Greater Poland easily defeated the Brandenburgians, seizing two of their major castles.77 As far as the information on the 13th century is concerned, the Wielkopolski chronicler does not provide any serious historical reflection. He does not explicitly express criticism of Duke Rogatka for giving Lubusz (germ. Leubus) to the Archbishop of Magdeburg in return for the latter’s support in Rogatka’s wars with his brothers. There is also no information about the emergence of Brandenburg and the beginning of its expansion into the territories to the east of the Oder, which led to Poland being cut off from Pomerania, the old fiefdom of the Piasts and, ecclesiastically, the land under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Gniezno. Furthermore, the chronicler does not offer any reflection on the emancipation of Pomerania from Poland and the fact that it became a fiefdom of the Empire at the close of Frederick Barbarossa’s reign. The Chronicle does not mention numerous key facts which have been taken into consideration by modern historians analysing the subject of the relations between the Piast states and the German states and with the Empire in the 12th and 13th centuries. To briefly summarize the question discussed here, it can be observed that the historiographical works written in Poland recognized the Empire’s authority over the Piast state, but solely as a factor in unifying Christians. The Germans and their countries were interesting to the chroniclers only in connection with Polish affairs. In the 13th century, arrivals from the West started to compete with the locals for posts and positions, which led to the emergence of stereotypes that attributed qualities of “non-humans” to the foreigners: character traits that emphasized possessiveness, greed for money and devilish perversity, as well as having physical features similar to dogs. 75 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 93–94. 76 Marek Cetwiński, “Polak Albert i Niemiec Mroczko. Zarys przemian etnicznych i kulturalnych rycerstwa śląskiego do połowy XIV wieku,” [A Pole Albert and A German Mroczko. An Outline of ethnic and cultural changes of the Silesian knighthood until the mid-fourteenth century] in Niemcy – Polska w średniowieczu, 157–169. 77 Chronica Poloniae maioris, 128.

chapter 7

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People in the Eyes of the Polish Elites in the Middle Ages Sławomir Gawlas The way in which the Holy Roman Empire was perceived by Polish intellectual elites in the Middle Ages is a broad and for many reasons complex research field. Analyses of various aspects of the Polish-German or, more broadly, the Slavic-German neighbourhood were carried out since the beginning of critical historiography in the nineteenth century.1 For quite obvious reasons, they did not have a strict symmetrical character, and the studies in general amounted to questions about the scope and mechanisms of the influence of German culture on the development of the Polish lands. Quite often the accompanying discussions were looking in the field of past events for substitute arguments relevant to contemporary political conflicts. Manifestations of dislike, provoked by intense contacts and especially by the inflow of foreign settlers, were gladly exposed. Therefore, the importance of the confrontation with the newcomers was emphasised as part of the formation of national identities in the Slavic-German borderlands. But their role was variously interpreted. On the one hand, the strong feelings aroused by the aliens were perceived as a reasonable reaction to the threat of German expansion (Drang nach Osten).2 On the other hand, however, expressions of hatred against newcomers were emphasised as evidence of an unrestrainable ethnic egoism of the Slavs. This was contrasted with the explicitly moderate attitude of the Germans. Hatred 1 Discussions and a broad literature on the subject of German-Slavic contacts are presented in: Thomas Wünsch, Deutsche und Slawen im Mittelalter. Beziehungen zu Tschechen, Polen, Südslawen und Russen (München, 2008); cf. Jan M. Piskorski, Polska – Niemcy. Blaski i cienie tysiącletniego sąsiedztwa [Poland – Germany. The light and shadow of a thousand-year-old neighborhood] (Warszawa, 2017). In this study, I refer only to the most representative and recent publications. 2 Stosunki polsko-niemieckie w historiografii, część pierwsza: Studia z dziejów historiografii polskiej i niemieckiej, [Polish-German relations in historiography, part one: Studies in the history of Polish and German historiography] ed. Jerzy Krasuski, Gerard Labuda, and Antoni Walczak (Poznań, 1974); cf. Klaus Zernack, “Die deutsch-polnischen Beziehungen in der Mittelalterhistorie aus deutscher Sicht,” in Polen und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahren. Die Berliner Tagung über den “Akt von Gnesen”, ed. Michael Borgolte and Benjamin Scheller (Berlin, 2002), 29–42.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_008

120

Gawlas

against them lacked real grounds, so it was treated as evidence of a culture gap (Kulturgefälle) between the West and the East, and implied German moral superiority.3 The analyses were based on the testimony of textual sources which were specifically chosen to prove the formulated statements. Yet be that as it may, the testimonies did actually exist. The radical extinguishing of political instrumentalisation in discussions on history (that had been ongoing since the 1970s) has not automatically led to a verification of the opinions established in the literature on the subject. What should be emphasised is a surprising circumstance in the above context, namely, that there has been comparatively little research on the problem of the image of the German Reich in Polish medieval sources. The accumulated knowledge is scattered and there are only a few more extensive studies.4 They focus mainly on written chronicles, and are synthetic in character. And their main emphasis is on the early modern and – especially – the modern period, which is in direct contrast to the great interest and insight found in the publications on the perception of Polish lands in foreign medieval sources.5 A main difficulty in outlining the subject is the necessity of taking into account various source-related problems essential to a thorough interpretation of chronicle texts, which in fact, however, cannot be exhaustively discussed within this present article. Neither does space allow any more comprehensive reflections on the method of research into external 3 Interpretations confirming moral superiority are presented by Erich Maschke in his otherwise substantive publication: Erich Maschke, Das Erwachen des Nationalbewusstseins im deutsch-slawischen Grenzraum (Leipzig, 1933). A radical position was taken by Kurt Lück, who was strongly involved in the Nazi movement: Kurt Lück, Der Mythos vom Deutschen in der Volksüberlieferung und Literatur. Forschungen zur deutsch-polnischen Nachbarschaft im ostmitteleuropäischen Raum (Posen, 1938). Lück concentrated on early modern times and collected a rich and full documentation of a variety of prejudices in folk stereotypes of Germans, comparing them, among other things, to the devil. An open attitude and reasonable acceptance of German superiority was demonstrated only by segments of the Polish elites. It was against this background that the primitive opinions of the majority of Poles became more conspicuous, as they rejected the reality, not wanting to remember centuries-long German cultural work. The author with great zeal and an equal amount of exaggeration searched for all traces of German blood in the origins of outstanding people in Polish history. 4 Teodor Tyc, “Niemcy w świetle poglądów Polski piastowskiej,” [Germany in the light of the views of Piast Poland] Strażnica Zachodnia 4, no. 7–12 (1925): 1–23 (repr. id., Z średniowiecznych dziejów Wielkopolski i Pomorza. Wybór prac, ed. Jan M. Piskorski (Poznań, 1997): 279–301); Maschke, Das Erwachen; also: Grabski, Polska w opiniach, 25–80. The most comprehensive analysis is: Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Poglądy polskich kronikarzy średniowiecznych na Niemcy i stosunki polsko-niemieckie,” [Views of Polish medieval chroniclers on Germany and Polish-German relations] in eadem, “Nie ma historii bez człowieka”. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza (Poznań, 2011): 241–94. 5 Grabski, Polska w opiniach obcych; id., Polska w opiniach Europy; Pleszczyński, Niemcy wobec pierwszej; id., Przekazy niemieckie o Polsce.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

121

opinions and their theoretical justifications. To satisfy these criteria, a detailed analysis would require a separate and substantial volume. In general, it may be said that the image of the German Reich was influenced by several factors. It was shaped by the character of the mutual contacts, and the way the conflicts were presented by the Polish side and the defence of their own interests. A basic mechanism of medieval international relations was matrimonial policy, omnipresent on the level of both states and aristocratic families. Polish rulers were constantly confronted with the ambitions of ruling dynasties in the neighboring countries. In the late Middle Ages, they were entangled primarily in the rivalry of the Angevins, Luxembourgs, Wittelsbachs, and Habsburgs. This rivalry had a great impact on foreign policy. As far as it was possible, and which depended on having children, rulers participated in a continuous diplomatic game. From this point of view there is no doubt that with regard to their own interest, both the milieus of the Polish royal court and the intellectual elites had a good grasp of the real problems of the Empire and they formulated ideological concepts. This is explicitly shown in chronicle narratives despite the fact that this knowledge was substantiated to only a limited extent in the sources, since it was constantly being transformed in line with the aims of its own policy and the methods of its justification. They were situationally conditioned, while at the same time were rooted in past experiences. From the early beginnings of the Polish state, the collective Polish identity was being shaped in confrontation with the emerging German community of memory which in the eleventh century adopted a scholarly assertion as to the ancient origins of the Empire.6 Crucially important for the functioning of collective memory was the development of the literate culture. Participation in this culture required an adoption of the heritage of Latin culture, together with its knowledge of geography and universal history. At the same time, however, the written text in chronicles irreversibly changed the rules for how knowledge about the past functioned. Oral testimony was brought up to date every time it was being told. A lack of interest resulted in a fading into oblivion. The literalised collective memory accumulated narratives of earlier events that were increasing with the passage of time. Once recorded, the stories were hard to erase or ignore. Their update was mainly a new interpretation. Written down in Polish chronicles, stories of contacts with the Empire were becoming a permanent element in Polish collective memory and were constantly influencing anew the way of presenting 6 Sławomir Gawlas, “Pytania o tożsamość średniowiecznych Polaków w świetle współczesnych dyskusji humanistyki,” [Questions about the identity of medieval Poles in the light of contemporary discussions in the humanities] in Symboliczne i realne podstawy tożsamości społecznej w średniowieczu, ed. Sławomir Gawlas and Paweł Żmudzki (Warszawa, 2017), 54–67.

122

Gawlas

later events. Thus, the image of the Holy Roman Empire was under pressure from the cognitive schemes developed and established in earlier texts, and they had within their framework a great impact on the shaping of worldviews. It could even be said that the episodes included in chronicle writings were to a large extent a component of the stories that constructed a Polish historical identity and sense of sovereignty. It seems therefore necessary to reach more deeply into the past and outline here some of the constructive elements for the image of the German neighbour in Polish medieval chronicles. A fundamental methodological procedure is to follow the changing versions of events that had been described earlier by their predecessors. Its importance is further underlined by the very frequent practice of passing over in silence inconvenient, contemporary events. This procedure, however, cannot be applied in a comprehensive way.7 I will, therefore, put emphasis on the emergence of new plots. From the Empire’s perspective: as a state, the Polish lands (from the very beginning of their state autonomy) belonged to the set of dependent countries. The actual forms of this subjection were almost constantly changing. In the twentieth century, their interpretation in legal and public terms became a matter of heated dispute loaded with political overtones.8 In this context, there was reference made to a distinction between the vassal feudal subjection and that of tributary one. Its additional hidden aim was to defend an extension of Poland’s state sovereignty. In the latter case it was supposed to be greater, and as such – better suited the image of the historical roots of Polish state independence. The meaning of the sources and the limited scope of the information they contain do not lead to unambiguous conclusions. Despite this fact, however, it should be noted that in the most recent literature on the subject, the general opinion seems to prevail that it was the norm for emperors to impose feudal bonds as the principle that would govern their relations with neighbouring countries.9 Yet, Polish rulers in general did not provide military support for the Italian wars 7 The application of methodological standards in the research on the functioning of the Empire’s image within public space requires an analysis of source texts – not on the basis of their critical editions, but through a careful scrutiny of the consecutive versions in individual manuscripts – in accordance with the rule that each copy is a separate narrative. The cognitive advantage of this method is demonstrated by Piotr Węcowski, Początki Polski w pamięci historycznej polskiego średniowiecza [The beginnings of Poland in the historical memory of the Polish Middle Ages] (Krakow, 2014). 8 The problem itself and the positions taken in the literature on the subject, seen in a concise way: Sławomir Gawlas, “Der Blick von Polen auf das mittelalterliche Reich,” in Heilig – Römisch – Deutsch. Das Reich im mittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Bernd Schneidmüller and Stefan Weinfurter (Dresden, 2006), 266–85. 9 Jarosław Sochacki, Stosunki publiczno-prawne między państwem polskim a Cesarstwem Rzymskim w latach 963–1102 [Public-legal relations between the Polish state and the Roman Empire in the years 963–1102] (Słupsk-Gdańsk, 2003).

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

123

and seldom participated in convocations of German princes. The possibility of resolving the dilemma between the tribute and being a feudal liege depends to a great extent on the general opinion about the legally set feudal rules that were applied to contacts with the eastern neighbours before the internal transformation of the political system of the German Reich in the twelfth century. Doubts about this matter, in my opinion, are justified.10 More light on the nature of the mutual relations has been shed by the analyses of symbols of public ceremonies accompanying political compromises at meetings of emperors with Piast princes.11 It should be emphasised here that members of the Polish elite tried to maintain close contacts with the Saxon aristocracy, and quite frequently also with the imperial court and the Bamberg cathedral associated with it. Without going into details, we are justified in thinking that the possibility being blocked from rising in status within the Reich served to strengthen the sense of being distinct among the Polish political elites.12 The first Polish chronicle written in the early twelfth century includes a description of the contemporary family tradition of the Piasts,13 prepared by the well-educated newcomer known as Gallus Anonymous.14 The way of presenting the successive historical episodes which make up the narrative suggests that specific facts were drawn from the decades-long circulation of 10 Cf. Das Lehnswesen im Hochmittelalter. Forschungskonstrukte – Quellenbefunde – Deutungsrelevanz, ed. Jürgen Dendorfer and Roman Deutinger (Ostfildern, 2010). 11 It applies mainly to the conventions at Merseburg in 1013 and 1135, and a deditio ceremony at Krzyszków near Poznań in 1157; cf. Zbigniew Dalewski, “Lictor imperatoris. Kaiser Lothar III., Sobĕslav I., von Böhmen und Bolesław III. von Polen auf dem Hoftag in Merseburg im Jahre 1135,” Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung, 50, no. 3 (2001): 317–336. 12 Factors indicating the attempts at direct references to the monarchies of Charlemagne and Otto, as well as the Biblical heritage of the Old Testament kings in the ideological programme of the first Piasts are presented by Zbigniew Dalewski, “W poszukiwaniu poprzedników – pierwsi Piastowie i ich wizja własnej przeszłości” [Searching of predecessors – the first Piasts and their vision of their own past], in Przeszłość w kulturze średniowiecznej Polski, v ol. 1, ed. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Andrzej Dąbrówka, and Piotr Węcowski (Warszawa, 2018): 23–58. 13 Galli anonymi Cronica et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum / Anonima tzw. Galla Kronika czyli dzieje książąt i władców polskich, ed. Karol Maleczyński, MPH N.S. 2 (Kraków, 1952); English translation: Gesta principum Polonorum / The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, ed. Paul W. Knoll, Frank Schaer, and Thomas N. Bisson, Central European Medieval Texts 3 (Budapest/New York, 2003, repr. 2007). The introduction includes basic information, but does not contain the current state of research. I refer henceforth to the critical edition. 14 The most recent state of the discussions of source studies are in: Nobis operique favente. Studia nad Gallem Anonimem, [Studies on Gall Anonymous] eds. Andrzej Dąbrówka, Edward Skibiński, and Witold Wojtowicz (Warszawa, 2017); cf. Tomasz Jasiński, Gall Anonim – poeta i mistrz prozy. Studia nad rytmiką prozy i poezji w okresie antycznym i średniowiecznym [Gall Anonim – a poet and master of prose. Studies on the rhythm of prose and poetry in the ancient and medieval periods] (Kraków, 2016).

124

Gawlas

information within oral memory.15 Its existence restricted the literary freedom of the chronicler, while still leaving plenty of room for his creative invention when he was unable to refer to any given knowledge at his disposal. In this place we can omit the question about the historical truth of the chronicle’s details, since what is really important is the fact that the image created in the chronicle initiated the continuity of Polish literary tradition, and thus the collective memory. For this reason, the chronicler’s opinion about the German Empire needs to be described in more detail. The Empire was represented by the emperor – imperator Romanus or cesar. In the mental geography of the author, Poland formed a northern part of Slavdom, neighbouring Saxony and Bavaria.16 There is also a collective name for the German state used in the text – regio Teutonicorum.17 More frequently used were the names of its people: Alemanni or Teutonici, who had participated in invasions and raids into Poland. Contrary to the Bohemians (who were born robbers – naturaliter raptores), they inspired respect rather than dislike. It was the Saxons who earned their collective characteristic as the immediate neighbours: indomitable Saxons – indomitos Saxones. Prince Boleslaw the Brave (Bolesław Chrobry) put iron stakes in the middle of their land to mark the boundaries with Poland. In the time of Charlemagne King of the Franks (Karoli Magni, Francorum regis), those Saxons who rebelled against his rule and did not want to convert to Christianity emigrated in boats to barbarian and pagan Prussia.18 Contacts with the Empire are more fully described in the chronicle on two occasions: the congress at Gniezno in 1000, and Emperor Henry V’s invasion of Poland in 1109. The two events became a permanent feature of the Polish chronicle tradition. The emperor was held in high esteem, and it was within his authority to grant the royal crown. On his pilgrimage to St. Adalbert tomb, Otto Rufus imperator was received by Prince Bolesław the Brave in a manner suitable for an emperor – “ut regem, imperatorem Romanum ac tantum hospitem 15

Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Gall Anonim – tradycja historyczna Piastów jako wykład o początkach rodu-dynastii i Polski, w planie podobnych realizacji dziejopisarskich XII stulecia,” [Gall Anonim – the historical tradition of the Piasts as a lecture on the beginnings of the family-dynasty and Poland, in a context of similar historiographic realizations of the 12th century] in Przeszłość w kulturze, 241–267. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, W stronę rytuałów i Galla Anonima (Kraków, 2018). 16 Adam Krawiec, “The Concept of Space in the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymus, the Mental Geography of its Author and their Significance for the Controversy on his Place of Origin,” APH, 112 (2015), 25–46. 17 Galli anonymi I-18, 42. 18 Galli anonymi I-6, 16; II-42, 111–112. The topic was not elaborated upon in the old Polish historical texts, but appeared in later German chronicles.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

125

suscipere decens fuit”. The richness and power of the host practically forced the emperor to elevate the prince to the throne: “such a great man does not deserve to be styled duke or count like any princes, but to be raised to a royal throne and adorned with a diadem in glory” – “in regale solium glorianter redimitum diademate sublimari”. So, the emperor took his own diadem (imperiale diadema) and put it on the prince’s head, and gave him “as a triumphal banner a nail from the cross of our Lord with the lance of St. Mauritius” – “pro vexilio triumphali clavum ei de cruce Domini cum lancea sancti Maurici dono dedit”. In return for the emperor’s favour Bolesław gave him the martyr’s arm – “sancti Adalberti brachium redonavit”.19 The message of this description is clear: Poland became a kingdom – regardless of the actual crowning of its rulers. They were to be equal partners, with the precedence of the prestige for the emperor being understood. The chronicler initiated the practice of a meticulous writing down in chronicles of all marriage connections between the Piasts and the imperial family. When his father was still alive, Prince Mieszko II had married the sororem tertii Ottonis imperatoris, while her son Kazimierz was matre imperiali puer.20 Over the next centuries the Gniezno congress was updated through further interpretations.21 In time, these were used to construct the idea of the restoration of the kingdom, that served as the principle for the unification of the Polish lands in the thirteenth century.22 While describing Henry V’s interference into internal Polish affairs, the chronicler gives a detailed account of the emperor: “Henricus imperator IIII, Rome nondum coronatus, secundo quidem anno coronandus”. This, of course, did not concern the course of the expedition itself. On the basis of his imperial power (imperatori legibusque Romanis), the emperor allegedly demanded three things of as his vassal (sui militis), Bolesław the Wry-Mouthed (Bolesław Krzywousty): divide his kingdom and give half to his exiled brother Zbigniew, pay annual tribute of three hundred marks, and provide military reinforcement. He met with an outright refusal. The expedition of the angry emperor was full of dramatic episodes that through the chronicle’s account entered the collective mythology of the Poles. Thanks to their bravery and God’s help, the emperor’s expedition ended in total failure. His plans to obtrusively crush Poland’s ancient liberty were thwarted by the Righteous Judge – “quoniam superbe libertatem antiquam Polonie subiugare cogitavit, iustus iudex illud 19 20 21 22

Galli anonymi I-6, 19. Galli anonymi I-7, 40, I-18, 41; Queen Richeza was not the emperor’s sister, but his niece. Węcowski, Początki Polski: 341 et seq. Wojciech Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland in Medieval Historiographic Thought, Kraków 2019; earlier Polish edition” Wojciech. Idea zjednoczenia królestwa w średniowiecznym dziejopisarstwie polskim (Kraków, 2012).

126

Gawlas

consilium fatuavit”.23 The struggles described at length are presented as the defence of the freedom of the land that had been frequently attacked and yet had never been completely subjugated by anyone – “multociens impugnata, nunquam tamen ab ullo fuit penitus subiugata”.24 Looking in retrospect, it could be said that, regardless of the actual historical events and circumstances, the self-stereotype of successful defence in its contacts with the Holy Roman Empire became a constant element in the Polish identity. The motif of full sovereignty was elaborated upon in the early thirteenth century in the Chronicle of Poland by Master Vincentius Kadłubek, bishop of Cracow.25 He modifies the meaning of the events recorded by his predecessor, revealing a strongly anti-German bias, and he supplements the origins of the Piast dynasty with his own reflections upon the earlier history of the community of pre-Poles – the Lechites. He bases his account of them on mythical, fictional plots drawn from oral history, but which he transforms with great literary erudition using Plato’s Timaeus and Justin’s Epitome.26 The narrative was constructed employing an elaborate rhetoric characteristic of the “difficult style” – ornatus difficilis – and a sophisticated vocabulary full of rare and uncommon neologisms. To correctly grasp its meaning requires knowledge of substantial source literature.27 The Empire in contact with Poland evidently became more German in character. As to his terminology, the chronicler uses a collective term Lemani, and only occasionally Teutonici. He also mentions Bavaria and Saxony, and princes in general (Lemanorum principes). In his narrative, the Germans appear several times, mainly as invaders: proud, tall, of iron strength, and as numerous as the locusts (Lemanorum locuste), full of fighting fierceness ( furor Teutonicus). Set against this background, the bravery of the Poles is made to look even better. A battle near Wroclaw in 1109 was turned into a crushing defeat of the emperor, who escaped – thus saving his life. Instead of tribute, there was a battlefield with heaps of dead bodies being eaten by dogs, and for this reason the place was called “Dogs’ Field” (Polish: Psie Pole, German: 23 Galli anonymi III-2-15, quotations: 129–130, 141–142. 24 Galli anonymi I-incipit 8. 25 Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadlubek Chronica Polonorum /Mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadlubkiem Kronika Polska, ed. Marian Plezia, MPH N.S. 11 (Kraków, 1994); translation to German with the Latin text and introduction presenting a survey of the state of research: Die Chronik der Polen des Magister Vincentius, ed. Eduard Mühle, FSGA 48 (Darmstadt, 2014). 26 Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Mistrz Wincenty i naśladowcy – wizje najstarszych dziejów Polski XIII–XV wieku,” [Master Vincent and followers – visions of the oldest history of Poland in the 13th–15th centuries] in Przeszłość w kulturze, 271–306. 27 Onus Athalanteum. Studia.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

127

Hundsfeld) – Canium Campestre.28 The chronicler thus reverses a contemptuous comparison of pagan Slavs with dogs present in early German chronicle texts.29 The terms describing the battlefield and a pejorative characteristic of the neighbours were preserved in the memory of the Polish chronicles. Master Vincentius also changes the interpretation of Otto III’s meeting with Bolesław the Brave in Gniezno. The emperor wants to honor the martyr St. Adalbert. Having seen the greatness of his host, he confirms his sovereignty. There was no royal elevation of any kind, and during the meeting of equal partners there is only an exchange of headgear: for a diadem instead of a helmet. It could be no other way, since it was already his predecessor, Mieszko I, who had been called the king. New meaning was given to marriages with German princesses who were accused by the chronicler of being proud, contemptuous of local people, and surrounded by German newcomers. Vincentius generally condemns women’s meddling with matters of power. Their apparent gentleness was only a cover for their untamed fierceness – “est enim omnis mansuetudo feminea omni severitate truculentior, omni truculentia seuerior”. Such a reflection is added to the description of the intrigues engaged in by Władysław II’s wife Agnes, a sister of Emperor Conrad III and aunt of Friedrich I. Also, the wife of Mieszko II, Richeza, behaves in a similar way (none of these wives are mentioned by name). There is even a suggestion made that the latter might not have been Casimir I’s mother, but instead his envious stepmother, and her intrigues resulted in the banishment of herself and the ruler.30 The chronicler is very familiar with new components of the imperial ideology of his times. This applies especially to a more precise definition of regalia as the sole prerogatives of supreme power and the reception of Justinian’s codification as the imperial law, together with their consequences for the justification of universal power.31 It is evident that Master Vincentius did not like Frederick I Barbarossa whom he calls the “red dragon” – rufus draconus. 28

In a document contemporary to the chronicler, the name: Psie Pole (literally: “dogs’ field”) was put down as the settlement Pzepole inhabited by the Teutonicis – in a charter of grants made by Prince Henryk I for the St. Vincent Monastery in Wrocław in 1206; Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, vol. 1, ed. Heinrich Appelt (Wien, 1971), 73, no. 101. The German name of the village – Hundsfeld – is regarded as a calque of the Polish version. The etymology of the term is unclear, however, since originally it could denote only “infertile soil”, that was later interpreted as a battlefield because of its new inhabitants. Cf. Józef Domański, Nazwy miejscowe dzisiejszego Wrocławia i dawnego okręgu wrocławskiego [Local names of today’s Wrocław and the former Wrocław district] (Warszawa, 1967), 34–35. 29 Magistri Vincentii III-18, 106; cf. Maschke, Das Erwachen, 10 et seq. 30 Magistri Vincentii II-14; III-26 and 29, quot.: 119. 31 Cf. Sławomir Gawlas, “Das Problem der Fürstenmacht zur Zeit von Vincentius Kadłubek,” in Macht und Spiegel der Macht. Herrschaft in Europa im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert vor dem

128

Gawlas

He is assisted by princes – principes – sometimes called senatus. With the use of rhetorical figures, the chronicler camouflages the fact of the emperor’s successful expedition, and contrary to reality, he suggests that the emperor’s intervention in 1157 ended in failure. As regards the return of his nephews, the Polish supreme Prince Boleslaw IV the Curly gives in only later, at the emperor’s request. In fact, there is relatively little real information about the German Reich in the narrative. The chronicler has a very poor opinion of the princes seeking the emperor’s assistance, and by way of example quotes the information that Bolesław the Tall is suspected of such intentions and wanted to sell Polish freedom to the Germans – “hic namque nostram Lemannis renundare libertatem”. During a discussion about the succession to the supreme prince’s throne, Bishop Pełka of Cracow rhetorically admits that Pope Alexander and Emperor Frederick had the authority to establish and abolish laws – “ius habent et condendi et abrogandi iura”, but what was of decisive importance was the will of people (cives), that is of the Cracow magnates. Such are the words he puts in the mouth of the emperor himself, who surrounded by princes (senatus) considers, contrary to his interests, to decide on the choice of the Polish ruler: nec Polonis eligendi principem posse adimi potestatem quia nihil interest inutilem habeant an nullum […] – imperatorius apex sententiat.32 [The Imperial Majesty judged that the power to elect their own prince cannot be taken off the Poles because it is not important whether they will have an useless prince or none at all.] In any case, the emperor’s authority was justified under divine right – ius divinum. The actual polemics over the authority of the German emperor are transferred by the chronicler to the times of legends and are constructed into an ancient history of the Polish kingdom stylised in the form of an empire established by Krak – Graccus. After his younger son had been expelled, it was beautiful and wise Wanda who was entrusted with the rule and who gave the name to the Vistula River – Wandalum flumen. When a certain Lemmanic tyrant (quidam Lemannorum tyranus) tried to take her throne (imperium) and to destroy her people – he was struck by the virtue (virtus) and majesty of his female opponent. Then, praising her charms, he resigns from a battle and throws himself onto his sword. The image of the queen is the opposite Hintergrund der Chronistik, ed. Norbert Kersken and Grischa Vercamer (Wiesbaden, 2013), 273–308. 32 Magistri Vincentii III-30 124; IV-21 177; IV-12 152–153.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

129

of German princesses and the bad wives of other monarchs. Later chronicles present other versions of the story of Wanda who is depicted as preferring to die childless rather than marry a German invader. In time, Wanda became so popular that she made her way into popular folklore.33 Later on, under the rule of people of lower social status, there was an expedition by Emperor Alexander of Macedonia. Imperatrix Polonia proudly refuses to pay tribute and successfully opposes his invasion. The dynasty established by Lestek I reconstructs the Polish empire which includes the territories of the Lusatian Serbs and probably also of other Polabian Slavs. Lestek III defeats Julius Cesar three times. The latter gives Lestek his sister Julia as a wife together with Bavaria as her dowry. Julia is sent away after the emperor claims the province back. Lestek’s successor, King Pompiliusz, takes over the Slavonic monarchy – Slauie monarchia – and is assigned ducatus, alias comitias seu marchia, nonullis regna to his bastard brothers. Through the instigation of his jealous wife, the monarch poisons his brothers. The dynasty, so contaminated by the crime, comes to an end, and the empire collapses, bringing down the glory of Poles – omnis Polonorum gloria. The meaning of the expanded story about victories over ancient emperors and the glory of the ancient Polish empire consists in ideological polemics, with the Prophet Daniel’s idea of the wandering of universal monarchies,34 being adapted at that time to the needs of the German historical memory. In a vernacular version written down in the Annolied or Song of Anno, and later in Kaiserchronik (Imperial Chronicle), rulers of the German Reich were the continuators of ancient empires and direct successors of Julius Cesar.35 Master Vincentius argues that already in ancient time, the Poles had not recognised this universal superiority and paid no tribute. Consequently, questioning the imperial powers, he conscientiously takes note of the manifestations of such powers in the successes of Polish rulers. The boundaries of the empire were renewed by Bolesław the Brave who subjected the neighbouring peoples, including the Saxons. When fighting off an invasion of Emperor Henry IV, the chronicler reminds the reader of the earlier refusal 33 Magistri Vincentii I-7, 12–13; cf. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Polskie dzieje bajeczne Mistrza Wincentego Kadłubka [Polish fairy tales of Master Wincenty Kadłubek] (Wrocław, 1998), 65–153; Violetta Wróblewska, “Wanda,” in Słownik polskiej bajki ludowej, vol. 3: P–Z, ed. Violetta Wróblewska (Toruń, 2018): 287–290. 34 Werner Goez, Translatio imperii. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen, 1958). 35 Magistri Vincentii I-9 14; I-17 23; I-19, 27; cf. Gawlas, Pytania o tożsamość: 58–67; Grischa Vercamer, “Imperiale Konzepte in der mittelaterlichen Historiographie Polens vom 12 bis zum 15. Jahrhundert,” in Transcultural Approaches to the Concept of Imperial Rule In the Middle Ages, ed. Christian Scholl, Torben R. Gebhardt, and Jan Claus (Frankfurt/Main 2017), 321–366.

130

Gawlas

to pay tribute to Alexander of Macedonia. In short time, he attributes almost imperial power to Bolesław the Wry-Mouthed, understood in terms of his freedom to make and depose kings. Commenting on his successful intervention in Bohemia, the chronicler notes that it incited hatred among the Germans: Quod illi aput Lemannos plurimum conflauit inuidie, quod imperatoriam sibi uendicaret quasi maiestatem, cum in regnis contiguis arbitratu proprio quos mallet deiceret potenter, quos mallet potenter sublimaret.36 [That brought him a lot of resentment among the Germans, that he acted almost as Imperial Majesty, when he deposed or raised whom he liked in the neighbouring realms at his own discretion.] The use of memory preserved in writing about past events to defend the sovereignty of Poland against the Empire, the interpretation of contacts with the Empire in national terms, and attributing to the Germans an envy at Polish successes became a constant feature of later chronicles. On the other hand, although the clearly overzealous image of an imperial sovereignty of its own in ancient Poland had not been forgotten, it was not continued in descriptions of later events. That Master Vincentius introduced to his narrative various fictional plots was made possible by the prevalence in the twelfth century of oral memory accounts over written versions. In the following century, however, the situation changed due to the rapid development of literary culture. The vision of the past recorded in the chronicle is the actual beginning of the Polish chronicle tradition. Its further development took place under new external and internal conditions. The collapse of the authority of the supreme prince residing in Cracow and the increasing political fragmentation of the Polish state were changing the scale of the ideological aspirations of the growing number of the Piasts. An important factor was the implementation of Gregorian reforms and the strengthening of papal control over the Polish Church under Pope Innocent III.37 As for relations with the Reich, of special importance was the elimination of the possibility of enforcing the imperial superiority as consequence of the dual election after Henry VI’s death. When there were 36 Magistri Vincentii III-20, 107. 37 Wojciech Baran-Kozłowski, Arcybiskup gnieźnieński Henryk Kietlicz. Działalnośc kościelna i polityczna [Archbishop of Gniezno, Henryk Kietlicz. Church and political activity] (Poznań, 2005), 94 et seq.; cf. Mikołaj Gładysz, Zapomniani krzyżowcy. Polska wobec ruchu krucjatowego w XII–XIII wieku [Forgotten Crusaders. Poland and the Crusade Movement in the 12th–13th centuries] (Warszawa, 2002), 144 et seq.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

131

internal conflicts, Polish princes began to seek protection from the pope.38 It was accompanied by a more effective collection of the so-called Peter’s Pence (denarius sancti Petri). Constructing an alternative to the imperial ideology account of Polish history lost its political relevance. It was replaced with the concept of a direct dependence of the Polish lands on the Chair of St. Peter and the protection accorded by the Roman Church, which were developed into a political doctrine. The development of this special bond with the papacy and its functioning in the late medieval period occurred in the period of a rapidly increasing importance of written documents in public life. The existence of source materials has made it possible to thoroughly examine this topic in the scholarly literature.39 In 1253, Innocent IV invoked the submission of Polish princes (principes Polonie) to the papacy as having existed since the time of the adoption of Christianity and the paying by the Polish people, in token of this submission, of an annual tax called denarius sancti Petri. Thus, the pope commanded legate Opizo, abbot of Mezzano, to provide all of them with protection against threats, especially any from Wilhelm of Holland – infeudationes, distributiones aut occupationes de terra Polonie inveneris, tam a carissimo in Christo filio nostro W[ilhelmo] rege Romanorum illustri quam ab aliis factas.40 Over next years, ideological interpretations of the consequences of the papal protection were further elaborated, only marginally taking into account imperial claims. Special bonds reflected in the payment of Peter’s Pence were included in the programme of the defence of the political unity of Polish lands that was given a national and at the same time an anti-German character. The most credible evidence is a 1285 letter of Archbishop Jakub Świnka of Gniezno to the cardinals. He emphasises the community of interests resulting from the submission of the Polish people – gens Polonica – to the Roman Church. By paying Peter’s Pence, as “special sons of this Church” (speciales filli eiuisdem eccclesie) they were justified in expecting its effective help. The occupation of Polish frontiers by German princes damaged also its interests for the latter recognised imperial authority as superior – quia dum fines Polonie per principes Theutonie occupantur, qui principes subsunt imperio et sic fines occupati devolvuntur ad imperium, et ob hoc ecclesia Romana proprio dominio frustratur. This is also the case when German knights and settlers did not want to pay Peter’s Pence – Theutunici tam 38

Johannes Fried, Der päpstliche Schutz für Laienfürsten. Die politische Geschichte des päpstlichen Schutzprivilegs für Laien (11.–13. Jh.) (Heidelberg, 1980), 289 et seq. 39 Changes in the function of Peter’s Pence are presented in detail in: Erich Maschke, Der Peterspfennig in Polen und dem deutschen Osten, 2. ed. (Sigmaringen, 1979), here: 47 et seq. 40 Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski [The diplomatic code of Greater Poland], vol. 1, ed. Ignacy Zakrzewski (Poznań, 1877), no. 314, 278.

132

Gawlas

milites quam coloni penitus solvere contradicunt, et sic ecclesia Romana privatur similiter iure suo. They were respecting the custom of their own people and not that of the land they had settled in. Also, the German Franciscans ousted the Polish brethren and joined the Saxon province. The archbishop expected help in defending the unity of the Polish ecclesiastical province – Polonia sicut prius non Saxonia censeatur.41 This specific ideological alliance with the papacy in a certain way excluded Poland from participation in the imperial struggle for dominium mundi and was something that was commonly known. In the oldest collection of Polish customary laws compiled in the early fourteenth-century in the Teutonic State, its German author stresses the fact that the Poles were taken under the protection of the pope to make easier their Christianisation and in consequence they were not subject to the emperor: dy Polen, von ir cristenheit anegende, habin dem romysche stule des bobistes undirtenik gewesin unde nicht dem keyser, wen sy der romysche stul in synen schirm inpfing, dorch daz ze erste gernir cristen wordin. [From the beginning of their Christianity, the Poles had been subjects to the Holy Roman See and the Pope and not to the emperor. Only because the Holy See received them under his protection, they wanted to become Christians.] For this reason, Polish courts did not derive their authority from the emperor’s power: unde wen ir gericht von dem keyser in dy werlt nicht enkunt alz dutscher vursten unde richter tut.42 [that is why their court of justice cannot judge in the name of the emperor in the world like German prices and judges do.] This change in perception of the Holy Roman Empire was caused in great part by the transformation of internal conditions within the region of Central Eastern Europe according to the principles of the German colonization that 41 Ibid., vol. 1, no. 616, 574–575; cf. Bronisław Nowacki, “Arcybiskup Jakub Świnka – budziciel i propagator polskiej świadomości narodowej,” [Archbishop Jakub Świnka – the awakener and promoter of Polish national awareness] in 1000 lat archidiecezji gnieźnieńskiej, ed. Jerzy Strzelczyk and Janusz Górny (Gniezno, 2000), 107–120. 42 Najstarszy zwód prawa polskiego [The oldest deception of Polish law], ed. Józef and Jacek Matuszewski (Łódź, 1995), § 1.1 and 2.1, 59.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

133

intensified at the end of the twelfth century. It has been the subject of numerous different studies. In the situation of the actual absence of German kings, the freedom of action of East German princes increased. There was a significant change in the character of contacts between the Polish lands and the German Empire. Instead of political confrontation with the imperial ideology, there was an intensification of border conflicts and direct contacts with the arriving German merchants, peasants and knights. The changes are more evident due to the richer and more diverse body of sources, but mainly because of the development of the legal functions of charters in social life. In comparison to the earlier chronicles, a marked change occurred in the terminology which became more standardised – there was almost exclusively one term used: Theutonici, and Theutonia.43 Source references in documents are abundant. What had a great uniforming impact on the status of any newcomers, regardless their ethnic origins, was the emergence in 1220 of the term: ius (mos) Teutonicus/corum.44 This change in terminology can also be seen in chronicle records, more frequently in the thirteenth century. They also contain almost exclusively the term Teutonici, mainly in descriptions of military conflicts with Brandenburg, but also of events with the participation of Germans living in Poland.45 From this perspective, the image of the Empire was focused on the nationality of its inhabitants. An increasing confrontation with German settlers in the first half of the thirteenth century as they were flowing into the Polish lands emphasised the differences which were obvious for ordinary people in their daily lives.46 These 43 The terminology appeared in the founding charter of Lubiąż monastery of 1175 – Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, vol. 1, no. 45, 28: monks came “de Portensi cenobio, quod est in Theotonia super Salam fluvium”. Lands were to be cultivated by “Theotonici” who “ab omni iure Polonico sine exceptione sint in perpetuum liberi”. 44 Jan M. Piskorski, Kolonizacja wiejska Pomorza Zachodniego w XIII i w początkach XIV wieku na tle procesów osadniczych w średniowiecznej Europie [Rural colonization of West Pomerania in the 13th and early 14th centuries against the background of settlement processes in medieval Europe] (Poznań,1990), 81 et seq. 45 Due to the vicinity of Brandenburg, most references are in the Greater Poland annals: of the Poznań Chapter and Gniezno Chapter – Annales Poloniae Maioris, ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH, series II-6 (Warszawa, 1962), as in the index. A more meticulous use of the records from Polish annals of the 13th century requires taking into account the fact that a majority of the annals have survived in later copies that were subjected to various updating measures. The Greater Poland annals have been preserved within the framework of a collection of historiographic texts called the Great Chronicle. It was made at the end of the 14th century, and its manuscripts were written in the century that followed. 46 Gawlas, “Pytania o tożsamość”, 69 et seq.; cf. Tomasz Jurek, Obce rycerstwo na Śląsku, do połowy XIV wieku [Foreign knights in Silesia, until the mid-fourteenth century] (Poznań, 1996), 158 et seq.

134

Gawlas

included the rules for paying tithes and the duration of fasts. They became the subject of prolonged disputes with the native clergy who tried to defend their interests with the help of ecclesiastical censures. The change in collecting the tithes was a result of the adoption of the German law, and fairly soon it included the local population as well. This is why it did not become an indicator of ethnicity – although it was not until the fourteenth century that it was regulated by compromise. In 1248, the settlers were discharged from the obligation of a nine-week-long fast introduced in Poland at the threshold of Christianisation by the papal legate, Jacob of Liège.47 Regardless of the later fate of this custom, it must have been firmly rooted in popular consciousness for it led to the coining of the term “German fast”. It was included in stereotypical descriptions of nations and peoples when they became popular in this region in the fifteenth century.48 The main features distinguishing Poles in their everyday and religious customs and their clothing are explained in the story of Casimir the Restorer (Kazimierz Odnowiciel), allegedly a monk at Cluny.49 It was written down not long after 1253 in two slightly different versions of the Life of St. Stanislaus.50 The pope dispensed the prince’s religious vows for the good of the Poles in exchange for symbolic signs of memory about this event in the form of a special haircut, national costumes, and the obligation to pay Peter’s Pence.51 Here we deal with an identity narrative whose importance we can follow in many sources of the late Middle Ages. It was broadly known from 47 Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, vol. 2: 1231–1259, ed. Winfried Irgang (Wien, 1977), no. 340, 210, § 12: “De esu carnium Theutonicorum et Polonorum.” 48 Stanisław Kot, “Pochwały i przygany w dawnych opiniach o narodach,” [Praise and exhortations in old opinions about nations] in id., Polska złotego wieku a Europa. Studia i szkice, ed. Henryk Barycz (Warszawa, 1987, orig. pub. 1954), 726 et seq. 49 Inga Stembrowicz, “Podanie o Kazimierzu Mnichu w polskim dziejopisarstwie do końca XIV wieku,” [A story about Kazimierz Mnich in Polish historiography until the end of the 14th century] in Symboliczne i realne podstawy, 220–282. 50 Studies and discussions on the Lives of Saint Stanislaus are summed up in: Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland, 113 et seq., 147 et seq.; recently, a significant establishment of facts has been presented by Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Prolog do Rocznika kapituły krakowskiej, św. Stanisław i czas historyczny,” [Prologue to the Annal of the Krakow Chapter, St. Stanislaus and historical time] in Przeszłość w kulturze średniowiecznej Polski, vol. 1, 309 et seq.; cf. Agnieszka Rożnowska-Sadraei, Pater patriae. The cult of Saint Stanislaus and the Patronage of Polish Kings 1200–1455 (Krakow, 2008), 55 et seq. 51 Vita S. Stanislai episcopi cracoviensis (Vita minor), ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, in MPH 4 (Lwów, 1884), 269–272; Vita Sancti Stanislai cracoviensis episcopi (Vita maior), ibid., 380– 382; cf. Chronicon Polono-Silesiacum – Kronika Polska, ed. Ludwik Ćwikliński, ibid. 3 (Lwów, 1878), 620/621. cf. Tomasz Jurek, “Fryzura narodowa średniowiecznych Polaków,” [National hairstyle of medieval Poles] in Scriptura custos memoriae. Prace historyczne, ed. Danuta Zydorek (Poznań, 2001), 635–651.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

135

the oral circulation of stories in other European countries because its elements were mentioned by an anonymous Dominican (from within the milieu of the French court) who was describing Eastern Europe.52 He set its content over against the actual state of affairs and observed that contemporary Poles had no longer conuersi cistercieneses, and some of them had long hair. The latter were also interpreted as an identity symbol or sign of favor since Prince Leszek the Black (supported by the citizens of Cracow) in favorem Teutonicorum coman nutriebat.53 It should be added that in the late Middle Ages, the story of Casimir the Monk was still alive in the popular course of historical knowledge.54 It was the concept of restoring the lost kingdom that was better suited to the political reality of the fragmentation in the period, rather than the memory of a lost Slavic empire. It was based on a conviction about the royal status of the Piast dynasty present in the earlier chronicles, and especially in the legend of the splendor of Bolesław the Brave’s times and the course of his meeting with the emperor at Gniezno. The existing sources have been minutely analysed in research.55 The idea of a renewal of the kingdom was formulated soon after the canonisation of Saint Stanislaw. The above-mentioned lives of the saint included a historiosophical construct of the history of Poland built around the obtaining of the crown by Boleslaw the Brave and its loss by his great-grandson Bolesław the Bold (Bolesław Śmiały). The glory of the kingdom of the first Bolesław (“magni regis Boleslai corona regni Polonie aucta crevit”)56 was corrupted by the tyrannical rule and wickedness of the other. The punishments for the sin of the murder of the bishop of Cracow were the loss of the crown, the successive rule of many princes, and the numerous calamities that befell the kingdom. God’s righteous judgments and the merits of the new saint justified the eschatological prophecy of a future re-unification and re-birth of the kingdom. God would have mercy and forgive the sins of the Poles. In 52 Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis. Imperium Constantinopolitanum, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Ruthenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bohemia Anno MCCCVIII exarata, ed. Olgierd Górka, (Cracovia, 1916), 57–58: “Catholici sunt omnes et ob deuotionem, quam habent ad Romanam ecclesiam, quemlibet domus tenetur soluere vnum denarium romane ecclesie et uocatur denarius sancti Petri. Olim omnes Poloni ibant tonsi sicut conuersi cistercienses, sed nunc aliqui incipiunt dimittere crines.” 53 Chronica Dzirsvae, ed. Krzysztof Pawłowski, MPH, series II-15 (Kraków, 2013), 85. 54 It was the legend of Casimir the Monk that the members of political elite referred to when giving evidence before Cardinal Antonio Zeno regarding the legal dispute with the Teutonic Order in 1422 – Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Fabularyzacja przestrzeni. Przykład średniowiecznych granic,” [Fictionalization of space. An example of medieval borders] in id., Takie sobie średniowieczne bajeczki (Kraków, 2012), 119–146. 55 Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland, 95 et seq., 427 et seq. 56 Vita Sancti Stanislai cracoviensis episcopi (Vita maior), 391.

136

Gawlas

the treasury of the Cracow cathedral the royal coronation insignia awaited the ruler when summoned by God.57 The historiographic structure is based on the scheme: a committed sin, God’s wrath and punishment, and hope for forgiveness and a change in the Polish fate, and this becomes then a component of the unification ideology from the very beginning. Later on, its elements were subjected to various modifications,58 but it remained a permanent feature of the interpretation of the course of events. It should be regarded as a testimony to the formation of a special alliance of Poles with God’s providence – the conviction developed later by Jan Długosz in his Annales,59 and willingly updated in various forms all the way through the centuries up to our times. It complemented the ideological alliance with the papacy as mentioned above. Another factor was the creation of Polish lands as the bulwark of Western Christianity – antemurale Christianitatis: the country constantly fighting against pagans and being threatened by the aggression of schismatics. This element appeared in the twelfth century and was developed over the next century. In the supplication of Prince Władysław the Elbow-High, quoted in Pope John XXII’s permission for his coronation of 1319, it occupied a very prominent place, next to the Peter’s Pence.60 In the fourteenth century, during the disputes over the territorial shape of the re-unified state, the obligation to pay Peter’s Pence was readily used as a sign of belonging to the Kingdom of Poland.61

57 Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland, 153 et seq. 58 Cf. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Czarna i biała legenda Bolesława Śmiałego,” [Black and white legend of Bolesław the Bold] (1981) in id., Takie sobie średniowieczne bajeczki, 27–100; Piotr Węcowski, “Strata korony królewskiej po śmierci św. Stanisława w opinii pisarzy późnego średniowiecza,” [The loss of the royal crown after the death of St. Stanisław in the opinion of late medieval writers] in Christianitas Romana. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Romanowi Michałowskiemu, ed. Krzysztof Skwierczyński (Warszawa, 2009), 274–299. 59 Recently: Adam Talarowski, “Dzieje w rękach Opatrzności. Elementy historiozofii Jana Długosza,” [History in the hands of Providence. Elements of the historiosophy of Jan Długosz] Roczniki Historyczne, 84 (2018), 191–225. 60 Paul Srodecki, Antemurale Christianitatis. Zur Genese Bollwerksrhetorik im östlichen Mitteleuropa an der Schwelle vom Mittelalter zur Frühen Neuzeit (Husum, 2015), 73 et seq. According to the author, it was the Teutonic Order that was the first to propagate the rhetoric of being a Christian bulwark in the region. 61 Jan Ptaśnik, Denar świętego Piotra obrońcą jedności politycznej i kościelnej w Polsce [Saint Peter’s denarius as a defender of political and church unity in Poland] (Kraków, 1908); Maschke, Der Peterspfennig in Polen, 61 et seq.; cf. “Wiersz o świętopietrzu” [A poem on Peter’s Pence], ed. August Bielowski, in MPH 3 (Lwów, 1878), 288–289: “Wrotslav cum Silesia, Nyssa, Swednicz, / Glogovia, Opol, Legnicz, / Ratiborz, Nyemodlin, Olavia, / Pomorania, Chelmensis est Polonia. / Hoc bene probatur, / Census Petri quia datur / Partibus in illis, / Oppidis, castris, quoque villis. / Sicut mater pia / Solvit tota Polonia […]”.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

137

This presented in the most concise way that the impact of the ideological actions of the Polish thirteenth-century political and intellectual elites on the image of the Empire should be supplemented with the issue of the genesis of the Polish community and its place within universal history. In this important area, the history of the Empire encounters the recorded knowledge about the Polish past. The problem arose at the very beginning of annalistic writing, since the first information about Polish lands was added to the compilation of the Annals of Hersfeld and the Annals of Reichenau (Augia), most probably in the version drawn up in Mainz on the occasion of the imperial coronation of Otto I. The time and manner of the reception of the model of Carolingian-Ottonian annalistic writing have been the subject of highly complicated and hypothetical discussions due to the quality of the preserved manuscripts. According to the most recent literature, the process of merging took place in Cracow in the second half of the eleventh century.62 Regardless of these disputes, it should be emphasized that the oldest layer of Polish annals records suggests the continuation of the registration of events from the history of the Empire until around mid-thirteenth century.63 The narratives in the first chronicle were devoid of dates and they loosely followed the chronology of events. In the era of great encyclopaedic historical compilations of that century, however, it became necessary to more accurately reconcile the described events with the available knowledge of universal history. The task required filling information gaps and was exceedingly difficult. An important role in this was played by the community of Polish Dominicans and the needs they had related to organizing a biography of Saint Stanislaus according to the patterns established in this hagiographical model.64 Wincenty of Kielce, the author of Vita Maior, intertwined Stanislaus’ life with the history of the country and established its basic chronological framework. He also undertook (in 1266–1271) the compilation of a new version of the Annals of the Cracow Chapter. He prefaced the text with an introduction and a chronicle of the world from its creation to the seventh century. It was an extract from the Etymologies by Isidore of Seville, and it completed the above-mentioned notes 62 I accept the convincing argumentation put forward by Tomasz Jasiński recently in: “Początki rocznikarstwa w Polsce,” [The beginnings of Annalistic in Poland] in Kościół, kultura, polityka pierwszych Piastów, ed. Waldemar Graczyk et al. (Warszawa/Ciechanów, 2016): 169–185. Traditional hypotheses of the Polish source literature in this matter are defended by Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland, 28 et seq. 63 In the most important account of the earlier chronicles, the Annals of the Krakow Chapter, the last information is about Wilhelm of Holland’s death – Annales cracovienses priores cum kalendario, ed. Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, MPH, series II-5 (Warszawa, 1978), 86. 64 A thorough analysis was made by Banaszkiewicz, “Prolog do Rocznika,” 320 et seq.

138

Gawlas

taken from the German chronicles. Soon, there was a broad and long-term reception of the Chronicle of the Popes and Emperors by Martinus Polonus (Martinus Oppaviensis).65 It contained only a few references to the Polish lands, but excerpts from it were used in the early fourteenth century as elements of the chronological frame for a new annalistic outline of Polish history emerging at that time.66 It included information about the emperors from Arnulf for the year 899 to the coronation of Frederick II in 1214 (or 1239).67 A compilation of Polish history was made in the Franciscan community in Cracow and it included into the records what had probably been written there from the materials from the Cracow chapter. The record of events continued for several dozen years, and successive versions of the annals obliterated its original wording.68 In fact, during the re-writing, the records of the events from the time before the baptismal conversion of Poland were abandoned. There was another chronicle compiled in the Franciscan community, the Dzierzwa Chronicle from the second decade of the fourteenth century. It is a summary (with minor modifications, but preserving the motif of the Slavic empire) of Master Vincentius’ Chronicle, with a concise continuation until 1288 and 65

What is known about the author and the text is summed up by Jacek Soszyński: “Wstęp,” [Introduction] in Marcin Polak, Kronika papieży i cesarzy [Chronicle of Popes and Emperors], the Polish translation and commentary by Agnieszka Fabiańska and Jacek Soszyński (Kęty, 2008), 11–84. Cf. Jacek Soszyński, Kronika Marcina Polaka i jej średniowieczna tradycja rękopiśmienna w Polsce [The chronicle of Marcin Polak and its medieval handwriting tradition in Poland], Studia Copernicana 34 (Warszawa, 1995). 66 Jacek Banaszkiewicz, “Rocznik tzw. małopolski (minorycki) z początku XIV wieku – próba dookreślenia zabytku,” [The so-called Lesser Poland Annal (of Friar Minor) from the beginning of the 14th century – an attempt to define the monument more precisely] in Przeszłość w kulturze, 353–365. 67 Rocznik małopolski [The Lesser Poland annal], ed. August Bielowski, MPH 2, (Lwów, 1872), 816–825, here: 818: “Anulfus fuit ultimus imperator quantum ad posteritatem magni Caroli”. Rocznik małopolski [The Lesser Poland Annal], ed. August Bielowski, MPH 3 (Lwów, 1878), 135–202, here: 164–165: Fredericus ultimus coronatur Rome et post hunc nullus Romam pervenit, ut coronetur. 68 The complicated history of the Franciscan compilation is analysed against the background of the whole Little Poland chronicle written by Wojciech Drelicharz, Annalistyka małopolska XIII–XV wieku. Kierunki rozwoju wielkich roczników kompilowanych, [The Lesser Poland annalystic of the 13th–15th centuries. Directions of development of large compiled years] Rozprawy Wydziału Historyczno-Filozoficznego PAU 99 (Kraków, 2003). Earlier, the author published a concise outline of his results: id., “Richtungen in der Entwicklung der kleinpolnischen Annalistik im 13.–15. Jh.,” in Die Geschichtsschreibung in Mitteleuropa. Projekte und Forschungsprobleme, ed. Jaroslaw Wenta (Toruń, 1999), 53–72; cf. id., Idea zjednoczenia, 327 et seq. The 19th-century editions of the annals contain many incorrect identifications of the source texts, and it requires a lot of effort to familiarise oneself with the results of the later source studies.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

139

an introduction in which the history of emperors is replaced with a biblical genealogy of the Poles presented as descendants of Iawan (Iawan quem Poloni vocant Iwan), Noah’s grandson.69 The relationship between the creation of a coherent version of Polish history and the evolution of the image of the Empire, amounting in fact to the minimization of its significance, can be further clarified by referring to the development of the situation in Silesia, in a different ideological direction. The members of the local Piast line not only maintained close contacts with the imperial court and princes, but after the mid-thirteenth century they further strengthened these ties by engaging in the election of Richard of Cornwall and in other disputes over the German throne.70 The coronation plans of Prince Henry IV Probus of Wrocław, which were drawn up around 1280, were initially planned in close cooperation with Emperor Rudolf I.71 Over the next decade, Engelbert, a Cistercian monk from the monastery at Lubiąż, later on the abbot of the Cistercian monastery at Mogiła near Krakow, and then at the Pomeranian monastery at Byszewo-Koronow, worked on a regional version of Polish history.72 The Polish Chronicle (Polish-Silesian Chronicle) consists of two parts, but was not completed. In the next century, the text was supplemented by the additions from another author. The chronicle was compiled in a German-speaking community. Its author was familiar with Polish historiography and contemporary interpretations of its threads to which he added his own views, in a rather unrestrained manner. Summarising the first book and in part the second book of the Master Vicentius’ Chronicle,73 he accused it of lacking objectivity and of concealing events unfavorable to its people. He 69 Chronica Dzirsvae, ed. Krzysztof Pawłowski, 1; cf. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Kronika Dzierzwy XIV-wieczne kompendium dziejów historii ojczystej [The Chronicle of Dzierzwa – a 14th-century compendium of the history of Poland] (Wrocław etc., 1979). 70 Jurek, Obce rycerstwo, 178 et seq. 71 Tomasz Jurek, “Plany koronacyjne Henryka Probusa,” [Henryk Probus’s coronation plans] in Śląsk w czasach Henryka IV Prawego, ed. Kazimierz Wachowski, Wratislavia antiqua. Studia z dziejów Wrocławia 8 (Wrocław, 2005), 13–29. 72 Kronika polska [The Polish Chronicle], ed. Ludwik Ćwikliński, in MPH 3, 578–656; cf. Wojciech Mrozowicz, “Die Polnische Chronik (Polnisch-Schlesische Chronik) und die Chronik der Fürsten Polens (Chronica principum Poloniae) als Mittel zur dynastischen Identitätsstiftung der schlesischen Piasten,” in Legitimation von Fürstendynastien in Polen und dem Reich. Identitätsbildung im Spiegel schriftlicher Quellen (12.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. Grischa Vercamer and Ewa Wółkiewicz (Wiesbaden, 2016), 249–262. 73 Wojciech Mrozowicz, “Z problematyki recepcji kroniki Wincentego w średniowiecznym dziejopisarstwie polskim (ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem śląskiej Kroniki polskiej),” [On the reception of the chronicle of Wincenty in medieval Polish historiography (with particular emphasis on the Silesian Polish Chronicle] in Onus Athlanteum, 326–336; Banaszkiewicz, Mistrz Wincenty, 301 et seq.

140

Gawlas

almost completely reversed the political meaning of the narrative and, instead of defending Polish sovereignty, he emphasised all the ties with the Empire.74 There are many such references in his text. The first Polish king was to be Mieszko, who then was visited by Emperor Otto III after he was baptized. The emperor crowned him during the feast and made him his vassal – coronavit suo dyademate et sic imperio feodalem fecit. His successor, Bolesław the Brave, received his crown from Emperor Henry I (actually, the second). The chronicler quotes a story about Casimir the Monk, but adds a reference to Casimir’s coronation by Emperor Henry II (III) before he returned to Poland. Bolesław the Wry-Mouthed provoked the emperor Henry IV (V) into invading Poland, and during the negotiations near Wrocław he cunningly imprisoned him and forced him in Kolberg castrum to serve in the kitchen. In return for releasing him, Bolesław gained his first-born son Władysław’s marriage with the emperor’s daughter Agnes. It was for this reason that when Boleslaw wanted to be crowned, the angel took the crown from his head and put it on the head of King Michael of Hungary – “cum in regem coronari deberet, angelus coronam de capite illius rapuit ac regi Ungarie Michaeli imposuit”. The Poles were calling the Germans dogs – Teutonicos canes appelantes – and in hatred for the dead called the emperor’s camp: Psipole [Dogs’ Field], id est Campus canum.75 The author knew the Polish language and was willing to use etymology for historical explanations. He did not spare the Poles his harsh comments, yet he did preserve a sense of belonging to their state (monarchia Cracovie). It was subject to the emperors from the moment it received royal dignity. The ones with the strongest claim to the throne were the Silesian Piasts, and Henry the Bearded was seeking the crown for his son, Henry the Pious. The political bias of the Polish Chronicle is a testimony to the emergence of a regional version of historical memory and identity in Silesia.76 Initially, their formation was hampered by the impact of the existing records of Polish historiography and the common origin of the dynasty, while a clear motive for their development was the sense of the civilizational superiority of the German newcomers and the ties with the empire. In the German chronicle writings of the thirteenth

74

The discussion about the chronicler’s opinions is summarised by Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland, 191–229. 75 Kronika Polska, 616–617, 620–621, 627–628, 630. 76 Sławomir Gawlas, “Ślązacy w oczach własnych i cudzych. Uwagi o powstaniu i rozwoju regionalnej tożsamości w średniowieczu,” [Silesians in the eyes of their own and others. Notes on the emergence and development of regional identity in the Middle Ages] in Ślązacy w oczach własnych i obcych, ed. Antoni Barciak (Katowice – Zabrze, 2010), 41–67.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

141

century Poland remained a subordinate country,77 and the emperors maintained their superiority.78 The apogee of the Polish-German conflicts fell on the period when there was an effort to restore the unity of Polish lands and renew the royal dignity, which happened at the turn of the fourteenth century. The friction mainly concerned internal relations, but also conflicts with neighbours, especially with Brandenburg. Stereotypical accusations against the Germans formulated in such circumstances emphasized their deceitfulness, ruthlessness, and the lust for domination. In 1306, these features were exposed in the trial of Bishop Jan Muskata of Cracow, a supporter of Bohemian rule. He was accused of favouring the Germans in the chapter, and of terrorising his opponents with the help of German mercenaries. He wanted to oust the real prince and his patron, Władysław the Elbow-High, and after expelling Polish landowners to the territories of schismatics, he replaces them with foreigners: […] verum heredem et patronum terre et ecclesie Cracovienses videlicet dominum ducem Wladislaum et terigenas Polonos de propriis dominiis ad gentes exteras et scismaticas profligare et alienigenas inducere.79 [… the true heir and patron of the land and church of Cracow, of course Władysław the Elbow-High, drove out native Poles from their own estates to external people and schismatics while inviting foreigners.] A few years later, in the continuation of the Annals of the Cracow Chapter, equally violent accusations were made about the attitude of Cracow burghers during the rebellion of Mayor Albert. They were compared to Judas for they acted filled with German rage like traitors, enemies of peace and hidden foes – “rabie furoris Germanici perusti, fraudis amici, pacis quoque palleati hostess et occulti”.80 In the nineteenth- and twentieth-century national historiography such expressive statements of this type were readily generalised as testimonies 77 Grabski, Polska w opiniach obcych, 219 et seq., 256 et seq. 78 In 1290, Emperor Albrecht I granted the domain of Henryk IV Probus to King Wenceslaus II of Bohemia, and in 1300 also Greater Poland as a fief – Archivum Coronae Regni Bohemiae, ed. Venceslaus Hrubý, vol. 2 (Pragae, 1928), no. 39, 64–64; no. 71, 110. 79 Analecta Vaticana, ed. Johannes Ptaśnik, Monumenta Poloniae Vaticana 3 (Cracoviae, 1914), no. 121, 78; cf. Sławomir Gawlas, “Verus heres. Z badań nad świadomością polityczną obozu Władyslawa Łokietka w początku XIV wieku,” [From research on the political awareness of the Władyslaw Łokietek’s camp in the early 14th century] Kwartalnik Historyczny, 95,1 (1988), 77–104. 80 Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej, 104.

142

Gawlas

of legitimate self-defence in the fight against German aggression.81 It is difficult, however, not to notice an explicit anachronism in such interpretations. Source texts were indeed a reflection of collective emotions, but within a fairly limited social reach, and political stability favoured their suppression.82 In the late Middle Ages, the ideological legacy of the period of fragmentation remained generally up to date. The development of literary culture ensured the continuation of the memory of the Polish-German conflicts from the previous era, but it was subject to further modifications. An important testimony is the so-called Greater Poland Chronicle (Kronika wielkopolska).83 The chronology of its compilation is one of the most contentious problems of Polish historiography.84 In the light of present knowledge, it was to be the first part of a new outline of Polish history, prepared in the third quarter of the fourteenth century, most likely in the last years of the reign of Casimir the Great, by the royal vice-chancellor, Jan of Czarnków, or someone from his circle. It contains the outlines of an ideological programme corresponding to the needs of the times of the last member of the Piast dynasty. The work was not finished, and the narrative of the chronicle breaks down in 1273. Its author used the works of his predecessors, but he based himself mainly on the Dzierzwa Chronicle and the Annals of the Poznań Chapter. He introduced many significant modifications, many of which were accepted by his successors. To fill in the gaps in his knowledge, he used arguments based on dozens of risky and complicated etymologies. With their help, he constructed a relatively extensive and difficult to succinctly summarize historical and geographical reasoning that was to supplement the image of Polish origins.85 Slavs came from Slaw (Slauo), and his descendant was named Nemrod – “Nemroch enim in slawonico dicitur 81 Roman Grodecki, Powstanie polskiej świadomosci narodowej [The rise of Polish national consciousness] (Katowice, 1946). 82 Benedykt Zientara, “Cudzoziemcy w Polsce X–XV wieku: ich rola w zwierciadle polskiej opinii średniowiecznej,” [Foreigners in Poland in the 10th–15th centuries: their role in the mirror of Polish medieval opinion] in Swojskość i cudzoziemskość w dziejach kultury polskiej, ed. Zofia Stefanowska (Warszawa, 1973), 9–37. 83 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, ed. Brygida Kürbis, MPH, series II-8 (Warszawa, 1970). 84 The most recent state of the discussions of source studies: Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland, 338–63. 85 The description was subjected to a critical and literary analysis by Brygida Kürbis, Studia nad Kroniką Wielkopolską [Studies on the Chronicle of Greater Poland] (Poznań, 1952), 115 et seq.; ead., Dziejopisarstwo wielkopolskie XIII i XIV [History of Greater Poland XIII and XIV] (Warszawa, 1959), 189 et seq. The researcher sought to prove that the description is an interpolation made in the 14th century added to the main text of the chronicle compiled at the end of the previous century. The author’s etymological comments need to be revised in the broader context. Cf. the comments to the critical edition and Paweł Migdalski, Słowiańszczyzna północno-zachodnia w historiografii polskiej,

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

143

Nemerza quod in slawonico interpretatur non pax seu non mensurans pacem”. The fatherland of the Slavs was Pannonia. Its name was derived from Pan, because in Greek and Slavic, the term means a nobleman (totum habens). Pan lived in Pannonia and from whence three of his sons migrated: “primogenitus Lech, alter Rus, tertius Czech”. They founded their own kingdoms, but it was the Lechites, or Poles, who retained superiority and supremacy. Later, other Slavic kingdoms were created, whose names are also explained. It turned out that the Slavs and Germans came from two brothers: Jan and Kuss, descendants of Japheth – “Slawi et Theutunici a duobus germanis Japhet nepotibus Jano et Kuss”. This was evidenced by the geographical descriptions of Germania in Isidore of Seville and Martinus Polonus. Its territory was described with the aid of rivers. The chronicler decided that the Rhine and Danube belonged to the Germans (gens Theutonica), and the Elbe, Oder and Vistula Rivers to the Poles and Czechs. The vast lands located between, reaching the North Sea (that is the Baltic Sea) had been recently occupied by Saxons (Saxones) who, expanding their area, established permanent settlements there. All Slavic countries except Pannonia paid tribute to the Poles until the times of Casimir the Monk. The common origin of Slavs and Germans is testified to by the etymology of their name, which means blood brotherhood ( fraternitas consanguinitate). It derives from the yoke (germo) which binds two oxen in a harness. Like oxen, the Slavs and Germans were bound by the mutual neighbourhood that gave rise to a sense of brotherhood: “nec ulla gens in mundo est sibi tam communis et familiaris velut Slavi et Theutonici”.86 Emphasizing neighborly cohabitation, lack of open hostility, and expressions of sympathy did not mean, however, recognition of any kind of subjugation to the Empire or retreat from emphasizing Poland’s sovereignity. The chronicler, presenting the fabulous history of the Poles, completes the story of Wanda with information that before she jumped into the Vistula, she received an oath of loyalty and tribute from the Alemans – “dextris Almanorum fidelitatis et omagii”.87 Describing the rule of Lestek III that occurred at the time of Christ’s birth, he listed the names of Lestek’s twenty sons whom he had begotten with concubines. The ruler ordered the crowning of his firstborn, Pompilius, the son of Julius Caesar’s sister, and gave the half-brothers their own duchies reaching from the North Sea to Westphalia, Saxony, Bavaria and Thuringia. The chronicler pointed out that some of them gave their names to the cities they niemieckiej i duńskiej [North-Western Slavdom in Polish, German and Danish historiography] (Wodzisław Śląski, 2019), 43 et seq. 86 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, “Prolog”, 4–7. 87 Ibid., 1, 9.

144

Gawlas

founded. Further on, he presented a more detailed description of them, mentioning over twenty cities and castles from Mecklenburg and its neighbors. Their belonging to the area occupied by the sons of Lestek was indicated by real or often only fictional etymology. The list goes beyond the region inhabited by the Polabian Slavs. To cite only a few examples, we can mention Bremen, which was supposed to carry the “burden” of battles with the Westphalians and Friesians during their invasions by the Slavs – “Bremon dictum de pondere, quia pondus inimicorum, ut puta Vestualium et Frisonum et aliarum nacionum Slavis ipsos invadendo, eisque reistendo sufferebat”. Similarly, the name Schleswig was said to derive from the Slavic herring – “Sleswyk, a sledz quo slawonice allec dicitur”. At least some of the explanations were not made up by the chronicler and were based on direct contacts with this still mixed-language region, in the circle of people who knew Latin, and therefore the clergy.88 It is possible to notice (in some of the mentionings) distorted references to the oral memory of real events. This is especially true of the fate of Prince Niklot of the Obodrites who lost Schwerin when defeated by an emperor – “quidam imperator devicto rege Slavorum nomine Mykkel”. His sons kept Mecklenburg.89 In the further part of his narrative the chronicler modifies slightly the meaning of the meeting with Otto III at Gniezno. The emperor, received with honors, puts the crown on Bolesław’s head as a sign of the covenant and gifts are exchanged, but immediately afterward the symbolism of the victorious sword of the Polish ruler is exposed. The sword is called “Szczerbiec” (the Jagged Sword) and is given to Bolesław directly by an angel.90 The ruler, moreover, was to restore the boundaries of the old Polish “empire” also in the west. The tributary superiority over the Polabian Slavs was lost by the exiled Casimir the Monk who maintained cordial contact with Saxony and his mother’s family. In the description of the invasion of Emperor Henry V, Bolesław the Wry-Mouthed is still called the king, and in the new version one finds an opinion about German envy of his successes. The ruler evoked hostile feelings among the imperial court dignitaries because he not only dared to wage war 88

Ibid., 8, 14–15; the chronicler returned to the etymology of Bremen when describing the rule of Bolesław the Brave to whom he attributed its construction and explained that: Bremø enim onus sive pondus dicitur in wlgari – ibid., 10, 17. 89 Ibid., 15. Niklot’s fate was described in great detail by Helmold von Bosau in his 12th century chronicle. A direct contact with it is unlikely. In 1378 a free translation of the chronicle was made: Mecklemburgische Reimchronik des Ernst von Kirchberg, ed. Christa Cordshagen and Roderich Schmidt (Köln/Weimar/Wien, 1997). In the part describing later events there are episodes evidencing verbal contacts with Polish lands. The problem requires further study. 90 Cf. Marcin Biborski and Janusz Stępiński, “Szczerbiec (the Jagged Sword) – the Coronation Sword of the Kings of Poland,” Gladius 31 (2011), 93–147.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

145

with the Holy Roman Empire, but he elevated the kingdoms subordinated to him at his own discretion – “non solum sacro imperio bella indicere presumpsisset sed eciam regna Romano subiecta Imperio proprio arbitrio quibus mallet excellenter sublimando donaret”.91 The feelings of equality with and (at the same time) of interest in the Empire is testified to by the inclusion in the narrative, in the description of the history of Wiślica, of stories about the fate of Walter and Helgunda, and Prince Wisław. Helgunda, the daughter of the king of the Franks and fiancée of the King of the Alemans’ son, chose Walter, who defeated his opponent in a duel, but himself became a victim of feminine infidelity. The plot is an adaptation of the threads of the German Heldenepik (heroic epic). It became popular in later historiography and was subject to further editing.92 There is also a colorful description of the actions of Władysław II’s wife, referred to as a relative of the Emperor Henry, together with her contempt for Polish knights and deceitful intrigues. On the other hand, contacts with Emperor Conrad III, who allegedly visited Prince Boleslaw IV the Curly (Bolesław Kędzierzawy) during his trip to Jerusalem in 1147, met with some sympathy from the chronicler. When describing events of the thirteenth century, the author uses mainly the information from the Greater Poland Annals about conflicts with Brandenburg and the participation in fights with the Germans. He is quite restrained in repeating the political tendency of the sources, but he introduces some of his own comments. He expands, presumably after Martinus Polonus, an account of the conflict between Pope Gregory IX and Emperor Frederick II, and the papal excommunication of the emperor. When describing the unsuccessful siege of the borough of Lebus by the archbishop of Magdeburg, the chronicler adds his own (otherwise unknown) justification for the archbishop’s claims. In the time of an unspecified Bolesław, the city was to be conquered by Emperor Henry and given to Magdeburg – “asserens illud per Henricum, tempore imperator Boleslai, expugnatam fuisse et ecclesie Maydeburgensi donatum”. A little further, he develops a description of the circumstances in which Bolesław the Horned (Bolesław Rogatka) transfers Lebus to the archbishop of Magdeburg in exchange for help against his brothers. This prince was the first to bring the Germans to Poland and separated out from Silesia the cities of Zittau, Görlitz, and other towns and castles. He finishes with an ironic comment: “who cannot see that Germans are brave and courageous men” – “quisne vidit Theutonicos viros strenuos et animosos esse”.93 91 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, 26, 38. 92 Banaszkiewicz, “Rudiger von Bechelaren,” 391–406. 93 Chronica Poloniae Maioris, 67, 86, 88, 94.

146

Gawlas

In an almost contemporaneous chronicle and perhaps one with the same authorship, royal Vice-Chancellor Jan of Czarnków describes in detail the internal events in Poland of 1370–1384 in which he had participated.94 For this reason, he devotes considerable space to border conflicts with Brandenburg, whose inhabitants are referred to as Saxons (Saxones). Earlier, they appear in this sense in the Greater Poland Chronicle. Due to its personal character, Jan’s narrative is similar to a diary. The author was an educated priest who was very well versed in the political realities of his time.95 Several times he mentions activities of the emperors in a substantive way, leaving off any unfriendly epithets. He therefore believed that they did not threaten Polish interests. He accurately calls Charles IV the Roman emperor and the king of Bohemia – Emperor Romanorum et Rex Bohemie. He dedicates a comprehensive and respectful posthumous memory to him. The emperor, given the epithet of praeclarus, died in Prague plenum bonis operibus. The chronicler describes his marriages and family descent from Henry VII’s election per electores imperii as emperor after Albrecht’s death, and the bestowing of the kingdom of Bohemia upon his son John. He presents his rule in black colors. The king preferred Rhinenses et Suevos to the Bohemians, so he was banished for a time, but with the help of the Germans (Theutonici or Almani) he does not stop doing harm to the Czechs – “non tamen doli machinamenta Bohemis inferre neglexit”. As a king, he was brave and generous, but also hypocritical and mendacious – “valde streuus et liberalis sed fallax et mendacii non ignarus”. With his lies, deception and money (“per mendacia, dolum et pecunias”), he first took Kłodzko, and then he harassed Prince Henryk VI of Wroclaw in such a manner that the latter handed over his duchy to him.96 Collective stereotypes of the Germans refer not to the Empire but its inhabitants. One can only guess that they served to strengthen the national way of understanding its territorial foundations. This does not mean, however, that the very idea of the Empire was questioned. The interdependence of the development of Polish identity and the way of presenting the prerogatives 94 Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa [Chronicle of Jan from Czarnków], ed. Jan Szlachtowski, MPH 2, 601–756. 95 The chronicler’s views have been analysed recently by Arkadiusz Borek, “Tożsamość czternastowiecznego prałata na przykładzie Janka z Czarnkowa” [The identity of a fourteenth-century prelate on the example of Janek from Czarnków], in Symboliczne i realne, 333–376. 96 Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa, 685–688. Henryk of Wrocław was so oppressed that he had to hand over his principality to Władysław the Elbow-High, but the latter under the influence of bad councillors gave it back, then the prince handed it over to the king of Bohemia.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

147

of both universal powers, emphasised in the observations made thus far, was highly dependent on the reception of political thought in the Latin world. The development of the idea of royal sovereignty in the fourteenth century,97 the collapse of the material foundations of the emperor’s power as king of Rome (that is as German king), and the dynastic rules of political rivalry did not provide any impetus for the active participation of the Polish lands in discussions regarding the imperial dominium mundi, and incidental claims to sovereignty were ignored as well.98 It was the long-lasting conflict with the Teutonic Order, on the other hand, that exerted a great influence on the ways of thinking of the Polish elites and led to the formulation of legal and public constructs. However, it was not interpreted in terms of a Polish-German dispute. The conflict with the Order as a Church institution renovated the papal authority and became the basis for the provisions of the canonical penal process.99 In the record of court materials of the 1320/1321, 1339 and 1422 trials, the most important problem was the affiliation of Pomerania and other lands to the Kingdom of Poland and the violation of the will of the Piast founders. While presenting the course of the war in 1409–1411, the concept of a just war was referred to. The defeat of the Order is presented in terms of the struggle between good and evil, and is explained by the Order’s exorbitant and unrestrained pride, and contrasted with the arch-Christian humility and piety of the Polish King Władysław II Jagiello for propaganda purposes.100 Sigismund of Luxembourg 97 Jan Baszkiewicz, Państwo suwerenne w feudalnej doktrynie politycznej do początku XIV w. [Sovereign state in feudal political doctrine until the beginning of the 14th century] (Warszawa, 1964), 303 et seq.; The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450, ed. J.H. Burns (Cambridge, 1988), 341 et seq.; Bernard Guenée, L’Occident aux XIVe et XVe siècles. Les états, 4. ed., Nouvelle clio 22 (Paris, 1991). 98 Cf. Grabski, Polska w opiniach Europy, 137 et seq. 99 The dispute with the Teutonic Order has left a very extensive documentation and literature, but of fundamental importance still is: Andrzej Wojtkowski, “Tezy i argumenty polskie w sporach terytorialnych z Krzyżakami. Część pierwsza (1310–1454),” [Polish theses and arguments in territorial disputes with the Teutonic Knights. Part one (1310–1454)] Komunikaty Mazursko-Warmińskie. Kwartalnik 1, 91 (1966), 3–98; id., “Tezy i argumenty polskie w sporach terytorialnych z Krzyżakami. Część druga (1454–1525),” [Polish theses and arguments in territorial disputes with the Teutonic Knights. Part two (1310–1454)] ibid., 1–2, 95–96 (1967), 3–84; id., “Procesy polsko-krzyżackie przed procesem z lat 1320– 1321”, ibid., 1, 115 (1972), 3–101. Cf. Arguments and Counter-Arguments. The Political Thought of the 14th – and 15th Centuries during the Polish-Teutonic Order Trials and Disputes, ed. Wieslaw Sieradzan (Toruń, 2012). 100 Sven Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, Band I: Einführung und Quellenlage (Berlin, 1982), 108 et seq., 156 et seq.; Marek Janicki, “Grunwald w tradycji polskiej od wieku XV do XVII,” [Grunwald in the Polish tradition from the 15th to the 17th century] in Na znak świetnego zwycięstwa. W sześćsetletnią rocznicę bitwy pod Grunwaldem. Katalog wystawy 15 lipca–30 września 2010, vol. 1: Studia, ed. Dariusz Nowacki,

148

Gawlas

is only an amicable arbitrator of this dispute in 1412–1420.101 The Roman king, acting in the role of a superarbitrator, sought to strengthen his imperial authority. The Polish representatives played a diplomatic game which boiled down to an attempt to use him against the Order, and after the verdict announced in Wrocław, which they viewed as unfavourable, they appealed to Pope Martin V. In the propaganda and diplomatic struggle at the international forum after the Polish-Lithuanian Union, and especially after the victory at Grunwald (Tannenberg) in 1410, the Polish side engaged a group of learned theologians and lawyers. It turned out then that the contemporary legal constructions and theoretical justifications for the authority of both universal powers were very well-known in Cracow. The problem is broad in scope and has been well-researched,102 and there is no possibility here to develop it further. The argumentation presented in public sought to effectively prove its points. Territorial claims against the Order were based on the principle of the inviolability and inalienability of the rights of the Polish crown.103 According to (Kraków, 2010), 89–154; recently: Adam Talarowski, “Od poganina do króla arcychrześcijańskiego. Wizerunek Władysława Jagiełły w Rocznikach Jana Długosza,” [From a pagan to an arch-Christian king. The image of Władysław Jagiełło in the Annals of Jan Długosz] in Średniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne, ed. Jerzy Sperka and Bożena Czwojdrak 9 (13), 2017. 127–152. 101 Zenon Hubert Nowak, “Internationale Schiedsprozesse als ein Werkzeug der Politik König Sigismunds in Ostmittel- und Nordeuropa 1411–1425,” Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 111 (1975), 172–188; id., Międzynarodowe procesy polubowne jako narzędzie polityki Zygmunta Luksemburskiego w północnej i środkowowschodniej Europie (1412–1424), [International Amicable Processes as a Tool of Sigismund of Luxembourg’s Policy in Northern and Central-Eastern Europe (1412–1424)] (Toruń, 1981). 102 Krzysztof Ożóg, Uczeni w monarchii Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej i Władysława Jagiełły (1384–1434) [Scholars in the monarchy of Jadwiga Andegaweńska and Władysław Jagiełło (1384–1434)], Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Rozprawy Wydziału HistorycznoFilozoficznego 105 (Kraków, 2004); Krzysztof Ożóg, The Role of Poland in the Intellectual Development of Europe in the Middle Ages (Kraków, 2009), 94 et seq., 111 et seq.; cf. id., “Intellektuelle im Dienste des Staates – Das Beispiel Polens im späten Mittelalter,” in Das Reich und Polen. Parallelen, Interaktionen und Formen der Akkulturation im Hohen und Späten Mittelalter, ed. Alexander Patschovsky and Thomas Wünsch, Vorträge und Forschungen 59 (Ostfildern, 2003), 301–321. 103 To illustrate we may quote Paweł Włodkowic’s treatise: “Ad videndum. Scriptum magistra Pauli ad impugnandum privilegia Cruciferorum” (1421), in Ludwik Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane Pawła Włodkowica, [Selected writings by Paweł Włodkowic] vol. 1–3, (Warszawa, 1968–1969), here: vol. 3 (Warszawa, 1969), 91–195. The author questions the legality of donations to the Order since the Polish king and his kingdom subsunt pape, and the latter did not confirm them. The ruler could not act to the detriment of the kingdom “quia Rex non est dominus bonorum et iurium Regni sed administrator” – ibid., 141; Cf. Henryk Litwin, “W poszukiwaniu rodowodu demokracji szlacheckiej. Polska myśl polityczna w piśmiennictwie XV i początków XVI wieku” [Searching the genealogy of noble democracy. Polish political thought in the literature of the 15th and early 16th centuries],

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

149

it, no previous concessions made by Polish rulers could have lasting consequences. The justification corresponded to the realities of the Polish elective monarchy of the first Jagiellon, but could have been incorporated into more universal constructs. At the same time, references are made to the natural law (ius gentium) and the concept of a just war supporting military actions against the spiritual institution. In this context, the full sovereignty of royal power was emphasised. Even before the expedition against the Teutonic Order, the professor of canon law, Stanisław of Skalbmierz, prepared a sermon De bellis iustis, in which he specified the conditions for waging war. He argued, among other things, that both the king and the emperor acted upon their own powers – “sive sit rex sive imperator auctoritate propria”. Thus, they had equal rights – “cum neuter habeat super se superiorem”.104 During the trial before King Sigismund of Luxemburg in Buda in 1412, the Polish prosecutor Andrzej Łaskarzyc wanted to prove “quod omnia privilegia Cruciferorum, per summos pontifices et imperatores concessa, sunt surrepticia, eo, quod obtinuerunt ius patronatus domini regis et principum Polonie”.105 In the next phase of the dispute at the forum of the Council of Constance in 1415, when the emperor asked the Polish and Teutonic legations whether they recognised his supremacy: “ab si irkennen unseren gnedigen herren Romischen koning etc. und das heilige reych vor eren obirsten” – he received a negative response from the Polish side: “si das reich nicht irkennen, sunder ir konig von Polan sei ein freier konig”.106 The participation of a large and well-prepared Polish delegation at the Council of Constance made it possible to attempt a challenging of the ideological foundations of the Teutonic State in Prussia.107 To discredit it, the in Między monarchią a demokracją. Studia z dziejów Polski XV–XVIII wieku, ed. Anna Sucheni-Grabowska and Małgorzata Żaryn (Warszawa, 1994), 13–53. 104 Ludwik Ehrlich, Polski wykład prawa wojny XV wieku. Kazanie Stanisława ze Skalbmierza De bellis iustis [Polish lecture on the law of war in the 15th century. Sermon by Stanisław from Skalbmierz De bellis iustis] (Warszawa, 1955), 100–102, § 11; cf. id., Paweł Włodkowic i Stanisław ze Skarbimierza (1954), 2 ed. (Warszawa, 2017), 29 et seq.; Hartmut Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik. Untersuchungen zur politischen Theorie des späteren Mittelalters (Göttingen, 1975), 171 et seq. 105 Lites ac res gestae inter Polonos Ordinemque Cruciferorum, 2nd ed., ed. Ignacy Zakrzewski, vol. 2 (Posnaniae, 1892), 60, § 53; here: § 51: “Cruciferi sunt de iure patronatus dominorum regis et principum Polonie, quia ipsi dominus rex et principes fundaverunt predictum Ordinem”. The accusations of the Polish side were formulated in 81 articles known to us from the summary of the emperor’s verdict, cf. Ożóg, Uczeni w monarchii, 190 et seq.; Wiesław Sieradzan, Misja Benedykta Makraia w latach 1412–1413 (Malbork, 2009). 106 Codex epistolaris Vitoldi magni ducis Lithuaniae 1376–1430, ed. Antoni Prochaska (Cracoviae, 1882), no. 641, 322–325, quot. on 323; cf. Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg, 202 et seq. 107 Stefan Kwiatkowski, Zakon Niemiecki w Prusach a umyslowość średniowieczna. Scholastyczne rozumienie prawa natury a etyczna i religijna świadomość Krzyżaków do około 1420 roku [The German Order in Prussia and the medieval mind. Scholastic

150

Gawlas

Poles used a scandal caused by a treatise of the Dominican friar, Johannes Falkenberg, entitled Satira contra haereses et cetera nephanda Polonorum et eorum regis Jaghel.108 Ultimately, the author’s views were not considered heretical, but the Polish side managed to take the dispute with the Order to the level of doctrinal principles. This was necessary because the opponents had at their disposal documents and evidence perfectly consistent with the principles of international law at that time. The main figure was the Cracow professor of canon law, Paweł Włodkowic. He prepared a number of treaties questioning the foundations of the Order’s power in Prussia.109 Referring to the discussion on the bellum iustum and superiority of ius naturale,110 with the help of various authorities he questioned the emperor’s power over peacefully living pagans. Reflecting upon the importance of imperial privileges, he argued that: “Imperium dependet a potestate pape nam ad ipsum spectat examinacio, approbacio et reieccio electi ad Imperium”.111 In opposition to the opinion separating the ecclesiastical and secular powers – “potestatem pape in spiritualibus and the potestatem imperatoris in temporalibus”,112 he stated that the pope had both swords – “papa habet utrumque gladium”.113 On the other hand, “execucionem gladij temporalis transtulit Ecclesia in imperatorem et ceteros reges”.114 He stressed, however, that “nomen imperatoris novum est respectu regum qui fuerunt omni tempore”.115 These statements belonged to a popular set of anti-imperial arguments and the fact that they were included into the argumentation against the Order was updating the tactical ideological alliance between Poland and the papacy after the Great Schism. In 1429, at the congress of Lutsk, Emperor Sigismund made an attempt to break the Polish-Lithuanian union by offering the crown to Great Prince understanding of the law of nature and the ethical and religious awareness of the Teutonic Knights until around 1420] (Toruń, 1998). 108 Boockmann, Johannes Falkenberg; Sophie Wlodek, “La ‘Satire’ de Jean Falkenberg. Texte inédit avec introduction,” Mediaevalia Philosophia Polonorum, 18 (1973), 51–120; cf. Johannes Falkenberg, De monarchia mundi, ed. Władysław Seńko, Materiały do Historii Filozofii Średniowiecznej w Polsce, 9 (20) (Wrocław/ Warszawa/Kraków/Gdańsk, 1975). 109 Ehrlich, Pisma wybrane, vols. 1–3; most important are the treatises: “Saevientibus olim Prutenis” (1415), vol. 1, 2–98; “Opinio Ostiensis” (1415), 1, 113–137; “Ad aperiendam” (1416), 1, 144–259 and 2, 2–167; “Ad videndum” (1421), 3, 91–194. 110 Cf. Kwiatkowski, Zakon Niemiecki, 132 et seq.; Stanisław Wielgus, The Medieval Polish Doctrine of the Law of Nations: ius gentium (Lublin, 1998). 111 Ad videndum, 163, cf. Ad aperiandam 126, 130. 112 Ehrlich, Pisma: Ad aperiendam, 121. 113 Ibid.: Ad aperiendam, 130; Opinio Ostiensis 126. 114 Ibid.: Ad aperiendam, 129. 115 Ibid.: Ad aperiendam, 143.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

151

Vytautas (Pol. Witold) of Lithuania.116 When he accepted the offer, a political conflict broke out. The Polish side invoked that this was a violation of the Polish Crown’s rights and argued that through the union Władysław Jagiello incorporated his lands into Poland as the highest prince of Lithuania. The Poles intervened with Pope Martin V and received his support.117 The imperial delegation carrying the relevant documents was detained, but an escalation of tensions was prevented by Vytautas’ death in the autumn of 1430. To strengthen the diplomatic argument, opinions of five Cracow professors were ordered in this matter. In their Consilium,118 they considered whether, according to the law, the elected Rex Romanorum needed papal approval and could appoint kings before the imperial coronation.119 The answer was, of course, negative: “nec licet propter vetustam consuetudinem, nec poterit propter defectus imperialis plenitudinis, ut talis electus in regem sine pape speciali licencia eligat vel coronet”.120 The arguments referred to the authority of Church law,121 and omitted Roman law.122 The making of kings was the prerogative of the Apostolic See: “cum igitur creatio in regem denuo tam de consuetudine quam 116 Grzegorz Błaszczyk, Burza koronacyjna. Dramatyczny fragment stosunków polsko-litewskich w XV wieku [Coronation storm. A dramatic fragment of Polish-Lithuanian relations in the 15th century] (Poznań, 1998). 117 Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti, vol. 2: 1382–1445, ed. Anatol Lewicki, Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 12 (Cracovia, 1891), no. 186, 253. Pope Martin V, accepting the Polish argumentation: “Carissimus in Christo filius noster Sigismundus Romanorum rex illustris illa [i.e. ducatus Lithuanie et terre Russie] seiungere et liberare a dicto regno Polonie et erigere in novum regnum” in his letter to the bishop of Chełm [Culm] called on him not to support in any way a coronation of Vytautas. 118 Stanisław Zachorowski, “Consilia w sprawie koronacyi Witolda,” [Conferences on the coronation of Witold] in id., Studya z historyi prawa kościelnego i polskiego (Kraków, 1917), 149–201, as an appendix (pp. 186–201) the author published the text of Consilium and the answers of professors from the University in Vienna which were prepared upon Sigismund’s order. 119 “Ad questionem, quia queritur, an in regem Romanorum electus canonice, cuius electio a papa est aprobata, cum nondum sit imperator aut per Ecclesiam iuxta ritum ab antiquo tantum in impetratorem consecratus, poterit denuo aliquem impetratorem in regem eligere et creare” – ibid., 187. 120 “Isto premisso ponitur igitur ista conclusio. Non potest electus in imperatorem aliquem in regem denuo creare, licet eleccio ipsius sit ab ecclesia approbata, non tamen consecracio vel coronacio facta” – ibid., 187–188. 121 “Item imperator debet habere, ut notat glossa magna in decreto Romani tres coronas: ferream, que notat fortitudinem, argenteam, que notat puritatem, auream, que notat excellenciam. Sed hac excellencia caret electus, poterit ergo ferream de facto dare, non auream, quia nihil dat, qui non habet, de iure patronatus Quod autem cum multis similibus” – ibid., 188. 122 Ibid., 156 et seq., 167 et seq.; the empire pleaded Roman law.

152

Gawlas

ex preeminencia dignitatis est Sedis apostolice”.123 The whole interpretation of the historical development of the Union of Poland and Lithuania was meticulously presented by the Polish delegation to the Reichstag at Nuremberg.124 The positions presented as to the emperor’s power were formulated to solve specific political and legal conflicts. In the above observations it was necessary to deprive them of their complex and diverse context of philosophical and ideological conditions. The emphasising of the pope’s authority was only of tactical significance.125 At the time of the Great Schism and general councils, the University of Cracow and the Polish intellectual elites were very active in discussing the reform of the Church and in developing the idea of conciliarism.126 The fact that Poland joined the papal camp did not mean that these ideas 123 Ibid., 190. 124 Codex epistolaris, no. 179, 237–241. Vytautas’ coronation violated the rights of corone regni Polonie. The desire to make it apud illustrissimum principem dominum Sigismundu regem Ungarorum, ut dicitur, electum in regem Romanorum is the violation of King Władysław’s will and his subjects. Cf. Błaszczyk, Burza koronacyjna, 117 et seq. Referring to Sigismund as king of Hungary was a deliberate sting. At the council of Basil in 1434, the emperor’s stance was commented upon by Mikołaj Lasocki who as a Polish representative had prepared a comprehensive and most interesting memorial for the envoys from Castile. He described the geographical position of Poland, the circumstances of its union with Lithuania, its conflict with the Teutonic Order, and the role of the emperor (imperator, qui semper fuit inimicissimus illi regno) together with the latter’s intrigues for Vytautas’ coronation. Cf. Kurt Forstreuter, “Eine polnische Denkschrift auf dem Konzil in Basel,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 21 (1972), 684–696; Stephen C. Rowell, “Du Europos pakraščiai: Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštytės ir ispanų karalysčių ryšiai 1411–1412 m. ir 1434 n. tekstuose,” [Two Frontiers of Europe: Relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Spanish Kingdoms in 1411–1412. and 1434 n. in the texts] Lietuvos Istorios Metraštis 1 (2003), 149– 188, here no. 10a, 173–185; also Karolina Grodziska, “Mikołaja Lasockiego obrona pamięci króla Władysława Jagiełły na soborze bazylejskim,” [Mikołaj Lasocki, defending the memory of King Władysław Jagiełło at the Council of Basel] in Cracovia, Polonia, Europa. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, ed. Waldemar Bukowski, Krzysztof Ożóg, Franciszek Sikora, and Stanisław Szczur (Kraków, 1995), 345–353. 125 Tomasz Graf, Episkopat monarchii jagiellońskiej w dobie soborów powszechnych XV wieku [Episcopate of the Jagiellonian monarchy in the era of general councils of the 15th century] (Kraków, 2008), 151 et seq. In 15th century Poland it was the king who decided on appointments of Polish bishops, and this was the source of friction in relations with the pope. For example, Pope Martin V was surprised to find that Władyslaw Jagiello wanted him to wait for the king’s decision in this matter. 126 Thomas Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen. Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien (Paderborn/ München/Wien/Zürich, 1998) (Konziliengeschichte, Reihe B: Untersuchungen), esp. 285 et seq.; cf. Krzysztof Ożóg, “La réforme de L’Eglise et de conciliarisme en Pologne au XV e siècle: bilan des recherches,” Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 6 (2001), 261–276; id., Die Role of Poland, 119 et seq.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

153

were automatically abandoned. In the second half of the century, the popes, who were engaged in strengthening control over the Papal States and in fighting against the heritage of conciliarism, had to sanction in concordats the increasing dependence of national episcopates on secular monarchs.127 The greater autonomy of temporal power and a growing sense of state sovereignty is evident in the treatise Monumentum pro rei publice ordinacione by Stanisław Ostroróg. It contains a programme to improve the functioning of the state and probably was drawn up in the 1470s.128 The author was a doctor of both civil and canonical law, carried out diplomatic missions, held the highest offices, and was a member of the royal council. He strongly emphasises the total sovereignty of the Polish king and his submission to God’s will alone – “Poloniae rex asserit (quod et verum est, nemini enim subiacet) nullum superiorem se praeter Deum recognoscere”. Ostroróg’s remarks are directed against the supremacy of both the emperor and the pope. Notarial officers authorised by them should be replaced by the ones appointed by the Polish king vested with imperial rights – “iura omnia imperialia habet rex, quicumque non recognoscit 127 Stefan Świeżawski, Eklezjologia późnośredniowieczna na rozdrożu [Late medieval ecclesiology at a crossroads], Studia res gestas Facultatis Theologicae Universitatis Jagellonicae illustrantia, 1 (Kraków, 1990), 71 et seq. 128 The treatise has survived in two slightly different versions. In the second quarter of the 16th century, when the movement of the nobility to reform the state (called the executionist movement) gathered strength, it was copied, prefaced, and prepared for edition. Cf. the edition with a Polish translation: Adolf Pawiński, Jana Ostroroga żywot i pismo O naprawie Rzeczypospolitej. Studium z literatury politycznej XV wieku [Jan Ostroróg’s life and the work ‘On the repair of the Republic’. A Study in Political Literature of the 15th century] (Warszawa, 1894). This more popular version did not correspond to the demands of that time and was quickly forgotten. In the literature on the subject, the 17th century handwritten copy, preserved in the library of the Jesuit College at Lublin, is regarded as more faithful to the original. Yet, it contains a large number of defects made during the process of copying. Cf. Joannis Ostrorog, Monumentum pro Reipublicae utilitate congestum, ed. Theodorus Wierzbowski (Varsoviae, 1891). Because of groundless doubts as to its authenticity, there has been no critical edition of the treatise, which currently is being prepared by Adam Talarowski under my leadership. Below, I agree to the oral opinion of Marek Janicki and refer to the version of the 16th century as more faithful to the original. Cf. Juliusz Domański, Zbigniew Ogonowski, and Lech Szczucki, Zarys dziejów filozofii w Polsce; wieki XIII–XVII [An outline of the history of philosophy in Poland; 13th–17th centuries] (Warszawa, 1989), 83 et seq.; Andrzej Wyczański, “Memoriał Jana Ostroroga a postulaty egzekucyjne XVI wieku,” [The Memorial of Jan Ostroróg and the enforcement postulates of the 16th century] in Ludzie, Kościół, Wierzenia. Studia z dziejów kultury i społeczeństwa Europy Środkowej (średniowiecze – wczesna epoka nowożytna), ed. Wojciech Iwańczak and Stefan K. Kuczyński (Warszawa, 2001), 483–487; the Polish translation with commentaries in 700 lat myśli polskiej. Filozofia i myśl społeczna XIII–XV wieku, ed. Juliusz Domański (Warszawa, 1978), 236–261.

154

Gawlas

superiorem”. The pope should be treated with respect, but not obedience. Bishops should be appointed by the king alone. Financial benefits paid to the pope do not serve to fight the opponents of Christianity, they are collected under the pretence of piety (sub specie pietatis), but they are appropriated by “cunning and deceitful Italians” – astuti et callidi … Itali.129 This observation corresponds to the contemporary reality of the Papal States and papal nepotism. The demands that the German language (lingua Theutona) in public life should be replaced by Polish are justified by the natural and perpetual aversion between these languages – “inter has duas linguas natura veluti quandam perpetuam discordiam odiumque inseruit naturale”. Whoever wants to live in Poland should speak Polish – “discant polone loqui, si qui Poloniam habitare contendunt”. This is what the dignity of the Poles demands, because they should know that the Almani treat their Polish language in the same way.130 An effort should be made to unify the law in Poland by imposing it from above. The Roman law created by senators (centum patres) and emperors (dignissimeque imperatores) should be followed. The author was aware that it was considered to be imperial law. Its use, however, would not be a sign of subordination to the German empire, because it is used by others who do not recognise any supremacy – non recognoscunt superiorem.131 The most complete image of the Holy Roman Empire in the Polish Middle Ages was outlined in Jan Długosz’s work.132 The exhaustive use of this material encounters a barrier given its size. The present analysis will focus on his main work, Annals or Chronicles of the Famous Kingdom of Poland.133 The chronicle covers the entire history of Poland – from the genealogy of the peoples after the Flood to contemporary events, reported almost until the chronicler’s death in 1480.134 The author was an outstanding figure: a canon of Cracow and a close 129 In both versions the arrangement of articles differs considerably, therefore I refer to: Pawiński, Jana Ostroroga, 128, 130, 136; cf. Ostroróg, Monumentum, 4, 6, 8. 130 Pawiński, Jana Ostroroga, 148; Ostroróg, Monumentum, 15. 131 Pawiński, Jana Ostroroga, 158; Ostroróg, Monumentum, 20. 132 The problem has been presented in a most comprehensive way by: Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Niemcy w opinii Jana Długosza,” in Krzyżaniakowa, Nie ma historii bez człowieka, 225–240. 133 Ioannis Dlugosii, Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, liber I–XII, ed. Jan Dąbrowski et al. (Varsaviae – Cracoviae, 1964–2005). A new critical edition in 11 volumes totals 3900 pages (without commentaries); cf. Krzysztof Ożóg, “Nowa edycja Roczników Jana Długosza. Próba bilansu,” [New edition of Annals of Jan Długosz. Balance sheet attempt] in Jan Długosz (1415–1480). Życie i dzieło, ed. Lidia Korczak, Marek Daniel Kowalski, and Piotr Węcowski (Kraków, 2016); the volume also contains the selected bibliography. 134 To facilitate the reference to older editions, when citing the Annales, I give: the year, book, and page; in the case of book one, with no dates, I give only the book number and page.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

155

associate of Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki; he maintained contacts with the circle of professors of Cracow University, held diplomatic missions, and was the tutor of King Casimir IV Jagiellon’s sons.135 When he was working on Polish history, he had at his disposal existing collections of various historiographic texts.136 Their use made it possible to take into account almost all the historical heritage preserved to his day.137 The chronicler was often biased by the tendencies of his sources, and added his own interpretations to the information he provided. The existence of the so-called autograph of the first part of Annales to 1406 allows us to follow subsequent comments which generally sharpen the meaning of the narrative. For the fifteenth century, chronicle accounts ceased to play such a significant role. The author relied heavily on information obtained from his protector Zbigniew Oleśnicki, took into account the documents of the Polish-Teutonic disputes, and took over the patterns of Polish propaganda as had developed in international arguments.138 Długosz worked on the annals beginning around 1450. When reporting current events, he relies mainly on his knowledge as an active participant in them.139 In his preface he says that he will present not only the history of the Poles, but also their neighbours and that of the papacy and Empire – “Bohemorum, Hungarorum, Ruthenorum, Pruthenorum, Saxonum, Lythwanorum, Romanorum insuper pontificumatque imperatorum”.140 Despite his extensive research and great 135 There is neither a current biography of the writer nor a satisfactory bibliography; the publications accompanying the celebration of the 600th anniversary of his birth are discussed by Hanna Rajfura, “Nowe badania nad życiem i twórczością Jana Długosza. Osiągnięcia i potrzeby,” [New research on the life and work of Jan Długosz. Achievements and needs] Studia Źródłoznawcze 56 (2018), 193–199. 136 Jacek Wiesiołowski, Kolekcje historyczne w Polsce średniowiecznej XIV–XV wieku [Historical collections in medieval Poland, 14th–15th centuries] (Wrocław, 1967). 137 On lost sources see: Tomasz Nowakowski, Źródła do dziejów Mazowsza w XI–XIV wieku. W poszukiwaniu rocznika płockiego [Sources for the history of Mazovia in the 11th– 14th centuries. In search of the Płock vintage] (Bydgoszcz, 2012). 138 Wojciech Polak, Aprobata i spór. Zakon krzyżacki jako instytucja kościelna [Approval and dispute. The Teutonic Order as a church institution] (Lublin, 1999), cf. Adam Talarowski, “Od poganina do króla arcychrześcijańskiego”. 139 Recently Wojciech Drelicharz, “Miejsce ‘Excerpta ex fontibus incertis’ w warsztacie historiograficznym Jana Długosza,” [The place of ‘Excerpta ex fontibus incertis’ in the historiographic workshop of Jan Długosz] in Jan Długosz (1415–1480), 71–86; cf. Sławomir Gawlas, “Astrolog przyjacielem historyka? Diariusz Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego w genezie Roczników Jana Długosza,” [An astrologer friend of a historian? Diary of Zbigniew Oleśnicki in the genesis of Annals of Jan Długosz] in Kultura średniowieczna i staropolska. Studia ofiarowane Aleksandrowi Gieysztorowi w pięćdziesięciolecie pracy naukowej, ed. Danuta Gawinowa et al. (Warszawa, 1991): 455–469. 140 Annales, 62.

156

Gawlas

erudite effort,141 the task was only partially completed142 and the Annals were not transformed into a universal chronicle. Nevertheless, the chronicler devotes a lot of space and attention to events in the Empire, especially regarding contemporaneous times, but he is consistent in presenting them from the perspective of Polish interests. As it was in Polish chronicle writings starting with Gallus Anonymus, when describing the inhabitants of the Empire, Jan Długosz most often uses the term: Almami, much less often Theutoni, and only exceptionally Germani. Presenting a new, broader biblical genealogy of Slavs and Poles, he combines it with an extensive geographical description called Chorographia. In this context, he mentions the destruction of Troy and the escape of Priam and Antenor on ships to Venice, later Padua (where Antenor was buried). It was from this place that he sets off to conquer Germany. The chronicler explains in this place the origin of its name and lists its provinces: Priamus cum comitibus Germaniam occupavit, et ab ipso et germano Anthenore Germania fuit dicta, que nunc a Teutos (qui est Mercurius) Teutonia vocatur, a Latinis autem Lemania dicitur, a Lemano fluvio; que has continet regiones: Lotharingiam, seu Brabanciam, Vistfaliam, Phrisiam, Thuringiam, Saxoniam, Sveviam, Bavariam Franconiam. [Priamus occupied with his companions Germany, and from himself and his brother Anthenor it was called Germania, which nowadays from 141 Długosz was drawing information from a very extensive set of ancient and medieval works and used every occasion to get new materials; still relevant to this is Aleksander Semkowicz, Krytyczny rozbiór Dziejów Polski Jana Długosza (do roku 1384) [Critical analysis of the history of Poland by Jan Długosz (until 1384)] (Kraków, 1887); cf. Sławomir Zonenberg, Źródła do dziejów Pomorza Gdańskiego, Prus i Zakonu krzyżackiego w Rocznikach Jana Długosza (do 1299 roku) [Sources for the history of Gdańsk Pomerania, Prussia and the Teutonic Order in Annals of Jan Długosz (until 1299)] (Toruń, 2000); recently Agnieszka Januszek-Sieradzka, “Wątki francuskie w Rocznikach Jana Długosza,” [French themes in Annals of Jan Długosz] in Jan Długosz – 600-lecie urodzin. Region – Polska – Europa w jego twórczości, ed. Jacek Maciejewski, Piotr Oliński, Waldemar Rozynkowski, and Sławomir Zonenberg (Toruń – Bydgoszcz, 2016), 61–83. 142 Stanisław Solicki, “Metoda pracy nad dziejami obcymi w Annales Poloniae Jana Długosza,” [The method of working on foreign history in Jan Długosz’s Annales Poloniae] Studia Źródłoznawcze, 22 (1977), 105–109; the author established that from among circa 3600 references, as many as 1400 concern the history of other countries, including: Germany (empire) – 143, Bohemia – 378, Hungary – 264, the Teutonic Order – 235, the Papacy – 140, Lithuania – 136, and Ruthenia (Rus’) – 135. It should be added that the calculation might be inaccurate, and after a volume of references is taken into account, the disproportion of foreign history diminishes significantly.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

157

Teutos (which is Mercury) is called Teutonia, by the Latins it is called Lemania, from the Leman river; it comprises these regions: Lotharingia, Brabant, Westphalia, Friesland, Thuringia, Saxony, Swabia, Bavaria, Franconia.] The invaders then attacked Gaul, which is called France because of its wildness. Brutus escapes on the same ship and gave the name to England.143 These regions mirrored the contemporary diversity of the Empire, which was transferred to ancient times. It can be added in this matter that Długosz presents the described events in national categories, but in accordance with the realities of his own time.144 He regards the inhabitants of the German Reich as a community of origin and language, and at the same time a political entity in which they participated during conventions or Reichstags (generalis dieta): the emperor, electors and princes. Other entities are also exceptionally mentioned, such as at the convention called by Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1431 to Nuremberg – “in Nuremberga omnium electorum imperii et omnium principium et communitatum Almanie conventus”.145 Generally speaking, however, the internal structure of the Empire was of little interest to the chronicler. He had too little information about the events of the past and only occasionally mentions the princes who participate in raids against Poland. He notices the existence of regional communities (usually referred to as nacio) when he wants to particularly emphasize the strength of the invaders, as in 1158 when describing the expedition of Frederick Barbarossa: “omnes enim viri imperii et omnem Alamanicam nacionem, Francos, Swewos, Rinenses, Baworos, Saxones, Lothoringos, Misznenses”.146 In such cases, the list of participants is justified by rhetorics. The situation does not change when he is constructing the narrative of his contemporary times. The chronicler’s attention focuses on the emperor’s policy, and only exceptionally on conflicts with the German principalities. Initially, the eastern border of Germany was marked by the Elbe River. Długosz mentions this several times when constructing arguments to show the 143 Annales, I.68; cf. Krystyna Pieradzka, “Genealogia biblijna i pochodzenie Słowian w pierwszej księdze ‘Annales’ Jana Długosza,” [Biblical genealogy and the origin of the Slavs in the first book of ‘Annales’ by Jan Długosz] Nasza Przeszłość, 8, 1958, 83–116; the chronicler constructed his reasoning on the basis of Isidore of Seville, the chronicle of Peter the Franciscan called Puteolanus, and some unrecognised sources – ibid., 105–106. 144 Sławomir Gawlas, “Świadomość narodowa Jana Długosza,” [National awareness of Jan Długosz] Studia Źródłoznawcze 27 (1983), 3–66, esp. juxtapositions in the form of tables 20–27. 145 Annales, 1431.XI.45. 146 Annales, 1158.V.62; cf. 1410.XI.124–125; 1412.XI.141; 1438.XII.183.

158

Gawlas

priority of Poles among the Slavs.147 He tries to compile a comprehensive set of different plots and eagerly refers to the etymology of names. Slavs, just like Germans, came from Japheth. His descendant Lech, traveling from Pannonia, gave his younger brother Czech his land. Rus was not a brother but only a descendant of Lech. When defining the borders of his country, the chronicler took into account knowledge based on the reception of Ptolemy’s Geography148 and identified ancient Sarmatians with Poles – Sarmate sive Poloni. He opposed the assumptions that the Vistula River was part of the border between Scythia and Germania, because Poles had always lived on the Vistula (nulla gens quam Polonica). The proper border of European Sarmatia was the Elbe River – “Alba seu Labya ex montibus, qui Bohemiem Morawiamque disterminant, oriens mediam provinciam prelabitur, qui Polonie sive Sarmacie Europie et Germanie limitem facit”.149 The adopted Sarmatian identification becomes a component of the political ideology of the Polish nobility in the early modern era.150 At the same time, Długosz refers to the concept of “imperial” borders of the state of the Poles developed in Polish historiography and included the Polabian Slavs “usque ad Almaniam, que nunc Myszna dicitur”. Depending on the circumstances, he interprets the meaning of the term “Slavic language” in different ways and is eager to identify it with the Polish language. The western border he sets as far out as possible, encompassing eminent cities: “Bukowyecz, que nunc Lubyk, Ham, quo nunc Hamburg, Breme, Slesnyk, Czesznya” [?]. The past of these lands is testified to by the names “in Polonico seu Slavonico” – although many of them had been distorted by “Theotonicis Saxonibus, qui eorum terras occuparunt”.151 In a version more elaborated than those of his predecessors, he describes Wanda’s rule, and her suitor is said to be the “princeps Almanorum

147 Cf. Andrzej Janeczek, “Świadomość wspólnoty słowiańskiej w pełnym i późnym średniowieczu,” [Awareness of the Slavic community in the full and late Middle Ages] in Słowianie – idea i rzeczywistość. Zbiór studiów, ed. Krzysztof A. Makowski and Monika Saczyńska (Poznań, 2013), 19–70. 148 Jadwiga Bzinkowska, Od Sarmacji do Polonii. Studia nad początkami obrazu kartograficznego Polski [From Sarmatia to the Polish community. Studies on the beginnings of the cartographic image of Poland] (Kraków, 1994). 149 Annales, I.67, I.88–89, cf. I.100. 150 Tadeusz Ulewicz, Sarmacja. Studium z problematyki słowiańskiej [Sarmatia. A study of Slavic issues] (Kraków, 1950). 151 Annales, I.117; I.142 et seq.; cf. Monika Saczyńska, “Czy istnieli Słowianie w późnym średniowieczu. Uwagi na podstawie lektury Roczników Jana Długosza,” [Whether there were Slavs in the late Middle Ages. Notes on the basis of the Annals of Jan Długosz] in Słowianie – idea i rzeczywistość, 71–105.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

159

Rythogarus”.152 The whole area on this side of the Elbe River was severed from Poland as a result of the crimes of Pompilius II, who was inspired by his German wife – ex principibus Almanorum. Consequently, the “regiones Polonicas sive Slavicas” located between Westphalia, Meissen and the Baltic is occupied by the nacio Theutonica.153 These historic borders were only temporarily restored by Bolesław I the Brave.154 The story of the border on the Elbe and of how the territory inhabited by the Polabian Slavs belonged to Poland should not be interpreted as a justification of territorial claims against the Empire. To remember the glorious past meant to emphasise the prestige of the Slavs and among them the preeminence of the Poles. Długosz respected the authority of the emperor and the pope, but he gave a higher position to the latter. This, however, did not mean political dependence. Real or alleged interventions by the popes in the past he regarded as justified when they were in line with Polish interests. As the head of the Church, popes should not overcommit their authority to secular life and political goals. The chronicler was hard on the behaviour of many such popes. He particularly criticized the situation during the Great Schism. He did not show much sympathy for contemporary popes and strongly defended the sovereignty of the Polish Church against the pontifs appointing bishops.155 It was not only an expression of the increasing secularization of temporal power, but above all it shows Długosz’s conviction of God’s omnipotence, which did not need any mediation to act.156 He took an even more explicit attitude towards the universal prerogatives of the emperors. He repeatedly mentions the respect due to them, but in specific cases a lot depended on the context. In confrontation with the Hussites, Sigismund of Luxembourg is described as: “Romanorum imperator, quem omnis Europa venerata est”.157 The emperors’ powers were so important that their authority was used to emphasize Poland’s sovereignty when drawing up a new version of the description of the congress in Gniezno. For spreading the Christian faith, Prince Mieszko I was supposed to receive a crown from the pope just before his death, but the latter withdrew his decision 152 Annales, I.129 et seq.; cf. Banaszkiewicz, “Rüdiger von Bechelaren”. 153 Annales, I.142 et seq. 154 Cf. Annales, 1012.II. 270 et seq.; 1013.II.271 et seq.; 1031.II.304 et seq. 155 The problem has been thoroughly analysed by Urszula Borkowska, Treści ideowe w działach Jana Długosza. Kościół i świat poza Kościołem [Ideological content in the sections of Jan Długosz. The Church and the world outside the Church] (Lublin, 1983), esp. 47 et seq., 60 et seq. 156 Cf. Talarowski, Dzieje w rękach Opatrzności. 157 Annales, 1424.XI.205; cf. Ibid., 1109.IV.253: “orbis terrarum imperator”.

160

Gawlas

under the influence of a vision showing him the sins of Poles. Emperor Otto III, cured of his illness through the intercession of Saint Adalbert, went to his gravesite at Gniezno in 1001. After a great reception, he ordered the royal anointing of Bolesław I the Brave. He distinguished his kingdom with the sign of a white eagle. The black imperial eagle was a sign of sovereignty over “naciones omnes Teutonice”, and the White Eagle was to subordinate “singulos Slaworum et barbarorum naciones”. At the same time, the emperor recognised the new king and his successors as […] imperii Romanorum socium et amicum, subiciens sibi et regno suo omnes Polonorum regiones nacionesque donans vero singulos principatus, terras et districtus (…) sub barbaris infidelibus et scismaticis nacionis acquisitos et in posterum munere et suffragio divino acquirendos. [as companion and friend of the Holy Roman Empire, he put him and his realm in charge of all Polish regions and nations by giving him every single principality, county and district (…) which had been acquired from the barbarian pagans and schismatics and will be acquired in future by divine gift and choice.] The imperial will now sanction a special position for the Poles. Otto confirmed his decisions by imperial privilege with a golden bull in which he freed the reges Regnumque Polonie from obedience and subordination – “a sua suorumque successorum imperatorum Romanorum obediencia et subieccione perpetuo remittens et absolvens”.158 The decisions were sealed by the marriage of the son and successor of Mieszko II to the emperor’s niece Richeza. It was supposed to add splendour to the royal dignity of claritate imperiali sanguinis. Marriage was therefore a complement to equal status.159 According to the chronicler, Bolesław the Brave actually subordinated neighboring peoples to himself. After his death, it turned out that his widowed daughter-in-law Richeza listened only to the advice of the Germans (Almanis) and appointed only them to offices. So, she was expelled and with her son, Casimir I, went to Saxony, to which she took the royal crowns and the entire treasury.160 The son, sent to study in Paris, became a monk in Cluny. At the request of the Polish 158 Ibid., 1001.II. 228–240. 159 Cf.: Duke Mieszko III the Old of Greater Poland, when his son was born: “nomenque filio in baptismate Ottho imposuit ne cezarum Otthonum, ex quibus ipse materno sanguine satus erat, nomen obliterari posset” – Annales, 1156.V. 57. 160 Ibid., 1036.II.313–316.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

161

delegation, the pope dispensed his religious vows in exchange for eternal rent (tribulum perpetuum). Returning to the country, Casimir visited his mother in Salzwedel and met with Emperor Henry III who at his request was willing to return the crowns.161 In the following years, according to the sources he used (mainly Martinus Polonus and Ptolemy of Lucca), the chronicler mentions the emperors’ expeditions to Bohemia and Hungary, Henry IV’s disputes with the pope, his fight with his son (with chronological errors), the concordat at Worms, and the succession of Lothar of Supplinburg. He continues to note in detail subsequent changes on the German throne.162 The first conflict between Poland and the emperor which he describes is the invasion of Henry V in 1109, presented according to earlier chronicles as the triumphant victory of Bolesław III the Wry-Mouthed. Although Długosz notes the name of the battlefield (Caninus Campus – Pszepole), he weakens its meaning by emphasising the honorary treatment of numerous German prisoners. According to the conditions of the peace concluded at Bamberg, the emperor was to recognize Bolesław’s independence and his status as empire amicum. The reconciliation was confirmed by the marriage of Władysław II’s son with the sister of the emperor, Christina, and the release of omnes captivos Alamanorum.163 The defeated emperor was clearly the best partner. In line with the tendency of this narrative, Emperor Lothar had to admit in 1136 that Pomerania and Rugia (Ger. Rügen) belonged to the Polish prince and were Polonorum terras naturales, so he resigned from demanding homage and tribute.164 It should be added here that the marriage with the sister of the emperor brought bad results because under the influence of her ambitions and intrigues a civil war broke out between Władysław II and his younger brothers. The defeated prince fled ad Conradum imperatorem.165 Długosz was the first Polish chronicler to describe under the year 1158 the victorious intervention of Frederick I Barbarossa in the Polish ruler’s defence. He tries to mitigate the effects of the defeat by emphasising the difficult military situation of the emperor, his readiness for peace, and some completely fictitious information about bonding with opponents through the marriage of the imperial relative Adelaide with the prince of Greater Poland, Mieszko III. The chronicler stresses that the Piasts had not complied with the terms of the 161 Ibid., 1041.III.30–33. 162 Długosz’ opinions on conflicts between the Hohenstaufen and popes could not have been positive, but Rudolf of Habsburg was: “homo inter Almanos humilis sortis et generis, sed animi magni et celebris” – Annales, 1274.VII.188; cf. 1291.VII.264. 163 Ibid., 1109.IV. 253–254; 1110.IV.256–257. 164 Ibid., 1136.IV.328. 165 Ibid., 1146.V.35.

162

Gawlas

settlement.166 It was not until 1163 that (at the emperor’s request and under the threat of his wrath) Władysław’s sons could return to Silesia. Then the hostility between the Polish princes and the emperor and Germany disappeared – “hostili respectu, qui a cesare Almanisque (…) sublato”.167 Długosz is quite consistent in softening the image of the empire as a power that was threatening Poland, but he uses every opportunity to emphasise its sovereignty. According to the sources he uses, the role of the enemy was taken over by Poland’s immediate neighbors, that is, the margraves of Brandenburg, called by the chronicler the Saxon (Saxones). He noted the unjust takeover by them for a small sum of money of the Lebus borough – “a Polonorum Regno iniuste alienatus ad marchionatum Brandenburgenesem transit”. He particularly condemns the margraves’ participation in the assassination of King Premislaus II in 1296. This hideous crime would not have happened had it not been for the hatred of the Germans toward the Poles and their desire to damage the glory of the Polish kingdom: […] etsi Theutonicorum erga Polonos malignus invidusque perspici posssit animus, qui orientem gloriam Regni Polonie, quantum in ipsis erat, extinguere pessumque dare conati sunt.168 [… although the evil and envious character of the Germans towards the Poles could be seen, who tried to extinguish and destroy the glory of the Polish realm, as far as they could.] In the fourteenth century, after the occupation of Pomerelia (Danzig Pomerania), it is the Teutonic Order which becomes the opponent condemned by the chronicler. Długosz accuses the Teutonic Knights of pride, greed, hypocrisy, cruelty, failure to keep agreements, and the fight against Christians. He mentions that their food came from the Empire, and that they spoke German. However, he does not use these circumstances as an important argument directed against all the residents of the Empire.169

166 Ibid., 1158.V.63–65; cf. Kazimierz Jasiński, Rodowód pierwszych Piastów [The genealogy of the first Piasts] (Warszawa/Wrocław, 1992), 235f. 167 Annales, 1163.V.74–76, 1164.V.76. 168 Ibid., 1250.VII.72–73; 1296.VIII.289–292. 169 Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Poglądy Jana Długosza na zakon Krzyżacki i jego stosunki z Polską,” [Jan Długosz’s views on the Teutonic Order and its relations with Poland] in Studia Grunwaldzkie, vol. 2, ed. Marian Biskup et al. (Olsztyn,1992), 7–37; cf. Gawlas, Świadomość Jana Dlugosza, 50 et seq.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

163

When describing the history of the Kingdom of Poland under the rule of the last Piasts, Długosz did not have abundant sources for a universal history. Yet, he notes the elections of subsequent emperors and is particularly interested in their Roman coronations.170 In this context it is the description of the Emperor Charles IV’s trip to Cracow in 1364 that deserves special attention. The free presentation of the course of events is made possible thanks to the fact that Długosz bases his description largely on the oral legend of the congress of rulers. According to the chronicler, Charles, (at that point referred to as the Roman and Bohemian king), upon news of the approaching kings of Poland, Hungary, Denmark, and Cyprus as well as numerous princes, dismounts from his horse along with his entire retinue of princes and barons. In this situation, the rulers who welcome him do the same. During the feast organised by the Cracow councillor Wierzynek, he assigns the highest place to the Polish king, Casimir III, the second to Charles, and the following to other rulers: Kazimirum Polonie regem primum et superiorem locum, secundum Karolum Romanorum et Bohemie regem, tercium Hungarie, quartum Cipri et ultimam Dacie accipere iussit. [He ordered to give Casimir the Polish king the first and highest place, the second to Charles the king of the Empire and Bohemia, the third to Hungary, the forth to Cyprus and the last do Denmark.] The chronicler, who in other passages calls Charles ‘Roman emperor’ (Romanorum imperator), puts in the mouth of the councillor the justification for his special obligations towards his king – “quod nulli magis quam domino suo Kazimiro Polonie regi (…) ad favendum de amplissimo honore obligaretur”.171 This distinction of the Polish king’s position goes clearly against the unquestionable prestige of the Roman emperor. The most recent information about the perception of the Empire is brought up by the narrative of Długosz’s contemporary times. The text is so comprehensive that its analysis can only be documented by reference to examples. According to the reality of that time, there was a far-reaching separation of two entities: the emperor and the German Empire, the latter represented by its 170 Annales, 1313.IX.87–88 – Henry VII’s coronation; 1324.IX.128–129 – Louis of Bavaria (the chronicler calls him only the Roman king); 1355.IX.273 – Charles IV. 171 Ibid., 1363.IX.319–321 (1363); cf. Roman Grodecki, Kongres Krakowski w roku 1364 [Krakow‘ congress in 1346], ed. Jerzy Wyrozumski (Kraków, 1995); Stanisław Szczur, “Krakowski zjazd monarchów z roku 1364,” [Krakow convention of monarchs from 1364] Studia Historyczne, 75 (2009), 35–58.

164

Gawlas

electors and princes. The most important decisions were made with the participation of princes, sometimes at a generalis dieta, most often in Nuremberg, in which “electores imperii et principes Almanie” participated.172 Exceptionally, in 1473, the chronicler comments on the engagement of the emperor’s son, Maximilian I, to Maria, daughter of Charles the Bold. Emperor Frederick III was then to promise to the prince of Burgundy the royal coronation during the negotiations at Trier: “[…] non sine preiudicio et iactura principum Almanie et totius nacionis Germanice Carolum Burgundiae ducem Romanorum regem creari, eligi et in Aquisgrano coronari promittit.” Conditions that pursued private interest are described by Długosz as ignoble – “titulum Romanorum regni et auctoritatem ex Germanis in Gallos ob privatum questum translatum esse et catholicis orbis Cesarem, quasi nihil melius successori suo Romanorum regi prestari posset.” The contract violated the order set by God himself and was not implemented because it was against the divine will.173 The chronicler follows carefully the policies of subsequent emperors. He pays much attention to their status and to their coronations in Rome. He describes the course of the imperial coronation of Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1433 and, particularly extensively, that of Frederick III in 1452.174 They bring about a change in the titles he uses in the narrative: “Sigismundus rex Romanorum et Hungarie was later referred to as Sigismundus imperator et Hungarie rex. Similarly, Fridericus Romanorum rex et Austrie dux was later on referred to as imperator (sometimes cesar) et Austrie dux”. Długosz regards each of the emperors in a different individual way. In his opinion, Sigismund of Luxemburg was a deceitful and lying enemy who was thinking one thing and promising another – “rex caliditatis vafre permistum ingenium aliud clausum gestans pectore aliud depromens, lingua adeo in promittendo blandus”.175 He therefore enjoys Sigismund’s troubles and failures. His successor, Albrecht II, was “princeps mitis et modestus et religionis 172 Annales, 1428.XI.231; cf. 1431.XI. 45; 1466.XII.173; 1471.XII.283; 1473.XII.307; 1473.XII.314–316. 173 Ibid., 1473.XII.315. 174 Ibid., 1433.XI.104–106; 1452.XII.140–143. The chronicler described the accompanying ceremonies and pointed out that contrary to the old custom, Frederick passed by Milan in order not to recognise the rule of Francisco Sforza. Pope Nicholas V was to say to the Milanese envoys that: “sicut poterat transferre imperium de Grecie ad Almanos ita et forcius illam coronacionem de Mediolano ad Romam”. 175 Ibid., 1419.XI.99; cf. Jarosław Nikodem, “Wróg Królestwa Polskiego. Zygmunt Luksemburski w opinii Jana Długosza,” [An enemy of the Kingdom of Poland. Zygmunt Luksemburski in the opinion of Jan Długosz] in Cor hominis. Wielkie namiętności w dziejach, źródłach i studiach nad przeszłością, ed. Stanisław Rosik and Przemysław Wiszewski (Wrocław, 2007), 183–199.

The Perception of the Holy Roman Empire and Its People

165

christiane amator ferventissimus”, but he ruled for a very short time.176 He was the father of Elisabeth, who was the wife of Casimir IV Jagiellon and the mother of his sons, and their dynastic rights were derived from him, which the chronicler repeatedly emphasizes. The positive characteristics of the emperor are therefore not accidental. In addition, his successor on the Hungarian throne was the Polish King Władysław III of Varna. The picture of his reign in Hungary as presented in the Annales contains very few elements of reality because it was constructed as a consistent polemic using the allegations of Habsburg propaganda.177 The character of Frederick III is presented in an ambiguous way. In general, he does not pose a direct threat to Polish interests, but extensive descriptions of his constant troubles, defeats and humiliations depreciate the majesty of an emperor. On the other hand, he was a political partner in the efforts to push the hereditary rights of Władysław’s son, Casimir Jagiellon, to the Bohemian throne. In 1470, the chronicler describes the proposal of Frederick III to arrange a double marriage for his and Casimir Jagiellon’s daughters with their respective sons, Maximilian and Władysław, as “sub equis conditionis fedus cum Friderico imperatore”.178 Ultimately, in 1473, the emperor and electors recognise Władysław Jagiellon as a natural heir to the Kingdom of Bohemia – “naturalem et legitimum Bohemie regem”.179 Throughout his whole chronicle, Długosz constantly refers to the set of negative stereotypes defining all the Polish neighbors. He is particularly unfriendly to Bohemians, infected as they were with Hussitism, and who are greedy, haughty, hateful of Poles and always eager to cooperate with the emperor against them. The Hungarians are cowards, quarrelsome, capricious, and willing to break their allegiance to their rulers. The Wallachians in turn are cunning, cruel and lead a predatory life. Ruthenians, on the other hand, are treacherous and prone to sodomy, and are people who hate Poles and willingly cooperate with Tatars. The chronicler treats the Lithuanians with a certain arrogance and believes that they are “inter septentrionales populos obscurissimi”. He thinks them to be quarrelsome, deceitful, prone to plunder 176 Annales, 1439.XII.209; the author also presents a reliable description of his physical appearance. 177 Władysław of Varna accepted the Hungarian throne only in the name of the defence of Christianity. As king, he cared only for the achievement of all ideals of a knightly king and crusader who was killed for his faith. On the polemic between the chronicler and Habsburg propaganda: Patrycja Szwedo, “Sub banderio cruciatae – Władysław III Jagiellończyk jako średniowieczny rycerz idealny. Wizerunek władcy na podstawie Roczników Jana Długosza,” Średniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne 9, 13 (2017), 186–210. 178 Annales, 1470.XII.252–253. 179 Ibid., 1473.XII.316–317; cf. 1477.XII.400: in Vienna, the emperor confert regalia to Władysław Jagiellon tradendo vexilia Bohemica.

166

Gawlas

and atrocities, allying with the Teutonic Knights, and sending Tatars against the Poles. Even more explicit are the characteristics of the pagan Turks and Tatars.180 Negative attitudes towards neighbors can be seen already in the first Polish chronicles. In the late Middle Ages, the stereotypical characteristics of national and regional societies became very popular in communities of literary culture.181 Against this background, the characteristics of the Germans in the Annals are not particularly negative. The main objection was the German sense of superiority, contempt for Poles, and constant envy of all their successes. The chronicler mentions this several times,182 but does not expose in any special way the thread of mutual dislike. The image of the Holy Roman Empire in the Polish Middle Ages was created in the conditions of an immediate vicinity. It was composed with the use of little real knowledge and was closely related to the growth of collective memory. It was selective because only certain events were subject to written record in chronicle narratives. Their set was constantly supplemented and adapted to the needs of changing times, but at the same time kept the overarching continuity of the ideological message. The universal Empire was a great challenge, and difficult to solve for the developing Polish identity. It evoked admiration and respect, and at the same time the need to defend Polish sovereignty. Arguments were provided from the memory of the glorious past. Poles had never paid tribute and had never surrendered. The more they made sure of it, the more willing they were to see the advantages of their great neighbour. 180 Gawlas, “Świadomość narodowa,” 47 et seq.; cf. Borkowska, Treści ideowe, 145 et seq.; Jarosław Nikodem, “Jan Długosz o stosunkach polsko-czeskich w czasach husyckich,” [Jan Długosz on Polish-Czech relations in the Hussite times] in Jan Długosz (1415–1480), 169– 182; Robert Urbański, Tartarorum gens brutalis. Trzynastowieczne najazdy mongolskie w literaturze polskiego średniowiecza na porównawczym tle piśmiennictwa łacińskiego antyku i wieków średnich [The thirteenth-century Mongol invasions in the Polish literature of the Middle Ages against the comparative background of Latin antiquity and the Middle Ages] (Warszawa, 2007), 261 et seq. 181 Kot, Pochwały i przygany; cf. Sławomir Gawlas, “Marność świata i narodowe stereotypy. Uwagi o wielokulturowości na Śląsku w XV w.,” [Vanity of the world and national stereotypes. Notes on multiculturalism in Silesia in the 15th century] in Korzenie wielokulturowości Śląska ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem Śląska Górnego, ed. Antoni Barciak (Katowice/ Zabrze, 2009), 29–53. 182 The 1466 peace with the Teutonic Order was so advantageous that “plerique Almanie et cometanei principes super tam magnifica Regni Polonici sublimacione singularis torquerentur invidia et pacis calumnialiter condiciones” – Annales, 1466.XII.161; cf. 1439. XII.201; 1458.XII.313.

chapter 8

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans in the Middle Ages Roman Michałowski The hagiographic literature of the Polish Middle Ages is scarce.1 There are two reasons. First, it should be noted that in medieval Poland writing as such was poorly developed; it was much weaker than in the West. This was an important reason, but the question is whether it was the most important one. The other reason lies in the nature of the cults of saints. Until as late as the mid-13th century they played but an insignificant role in Poland.2 It is, therefore, not surprising that the demand for literature devoted to saints was limited. In later centuries, although its role grew, it never became as significant as it was in the 1 The research was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland as part of the grant No. 2015/17/B/HS3/00502. For more on Polish medieval hagiography, see Jerzy Starnawski, Drogi rozwojowe hagiografii polskiej i łacińskiej w wiekach średnich [Development paths of Polish and Latin hagiography in the Middle Ages], Pontificia Academia Theologica Cracoviensis. Facultas Historica, 5 (Kraków, 1993); Teresa Dunin-Wąsowicz, “Hagiographie polonaise entre XIe et XVIe siècle,” Hagiographies. Histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire des origines à 1550, ed. Guy Philippart, Corpus Christianorum. Hagiographies 3 (Turnhout, 2001), 179–202; Aleksandra Witkowska, “Polska twórczość hagiograficzna. Próba bilansu, [Polish hagiographic works. Balance sheet attempt]” in ead., Sancti Miracula Peregrinationes. Wybór tekstów z lat 1974–2008 (Lublin, 2009, 1st ed. 2005), 13–29; Halina Manikowska and Dorota Gacka, “Hagiografia a historyczność, czyli o historii w hagiografii i hagiografia w służbie historii, [Hagiography and historicity, or about history in hagiography and hagiography in the service of history]” in Przeszłość w kulturze średniowiecznej Polski 1, eds. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Andrzej Dąbrówka, and Piotr Węcowski (Warszawa, 2018), 657–748. For more on Polish descriptions of miracles, see first of all: Aleksandra Witkowska, “Miracula małopolskie z XIII i XIV wieku – Studium źródłoznawcze, [Miracula of Lesser Poland from the 13th and 14th centuries – A source study]” Roczniki Humanistyczne 19/2 (1971), 29–161. On medieval Polish hagiography as compared to European hagiography Les saints et leur culte en Europe centrale au Moyen Age (XIe–début du XVIe siècle), eds. Marie-Madeleine de Cevins and Olivier Marin, Hagiologia. Etudes sur la sainteté et l’hagiographie – Studies on Sanctity and Hagiography 13 (Turnhout, 2017). 2 Roman Michałowski, “Le culte des saints du Haut Moyen Age en Pologne et en Europe Occidentale,” in La Pologne et l’Europe Occidentale du Moyen Age à nos jours. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Université Paris VII-Denis Diderot. Paris, les 28 et 29 octobre 1999, eds. Marie-Louise Pelus-Kaplan and Daniel Tollet, Publikacje Instytutu Historii UAM 58 (Poznań-Paris, 2004), 29–41.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_009

168

Michałowski

West. True, in the 13th century, St. Stanislaus became not only a patron of the kingdom but also a miracle-worker whose tomb attracted crowds of the faithful. In addition to St. Stanislaus, there were also other miracle working saints. On the other hand, the number of Polish canonisations was minimal. In the late Middle Ages the only other canonization, apart from Stanislaus’, was that of Hedwig of Silesia. Of the modest number of hagiographic texts originating in Poland only some will be of use in the present study. If they are to reflect the Polish view of Germans, we need to exclude texts which, although originating in Poland or commissioned in Poland, were written by foreigners. This means omitting the works of Bruno of Querfurt, even if we agree with the hypothesis that the great missionary wrote them at the court of Boleslaus the Brave. For the same reason we will have to leave aside the two oldest surviving vitae of St. Hedwig,3 since their author – according to the most likely hypothesis – was a Franciscan from Wrocław, i.e., most certainly a German.4 A Wrocław Franciscan may have written the Vita of Anne, wife of Henry the Pious, so drawing on the same premise, we will have to leave aside this source as well.5 The application of the principle formulated above will reduce even further the corpus of texts available for the present study. Yet, there is another difficulty. With some exceptions, the authors of Polish hagiographic sources are unknown, which is why attributing a text to a Pole is in most cases not always obvious, and so is a matter of guesswork. There were many foreigners among the local clergy, not only in 13th century Silesia. Thus, we have to realise that including a work in our source base will in many cases be a decision based on a hypothesis. The oldest hagiographic source meeting these criteria is the Vita of St. Adalbert, known from its incipit as Tempore illo.6 It originated most likely in Gniezno and is dated broadly between the first half of the 12th century and the year 1248. To a large extent its author used the earlier vitae of St. Adalbert (Vita I and the Vita by Bruno of Querfurt), and also introduced some additional 3 Vita sanctae Hedwigis, ed. Aleksander Semkowicz, MPH 4 (Lwów, 1884), 501–655. 4 Maciej Michalski, Kobiety i świętość w żywotach trzynastowiecznych księżnych polskich [Women and holiness in the lives of 13th-century Polish princesses] (Poznań, 2004), 38–48. 5 Vita Annae ducussae Silesiae, ed. Aleksander Semkowicz, MPH 4, 656–661. Michalski, Kobiety i świętość, 56–60; pp. 311–317 feature the Latin text and the Polish translation of this particular vita. 6 De sancto Adalberto episcopo, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 206–221. Gerard Labuda, “Nad legendą o św. Wojciechu ‘Tempore illo’. Analiza źródłoznawcza, [Above the legend of St. Wojciech ‘Tempore illo’. Source analysis]” Ecclesia Posnanensis. in Opuscula Mariano Banaszak Septuagenario dedicata, ed. Feliks Lenort, Konrad Lutyński (Poznań, 1998), 11–31.

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans

169

material associated with the martyr’s activity in Poland during his mission there. This material may have been written by an interpolator. What matters from our point of view is the fact that the words “German” or “Germany” do not appear in the text. When describing the Bishop of Prague’s school years and career in the church, the author does mention Magdeburg and Mainz, but he does not give the name of the country. The word “Saxony” or any other word of the kind is not used. In the part concerning Poland the hagiographer presents St. Adalbert as its evangeliser and founder of the Polish nation.7 The author’s national self-identification is beyond doubt in this case. On the other hand, he shows absolutely no interest in the Germans. A characteristic feature of medieval Polish hagiography is its political dimension, referring to the history of the Polish nation and state. An example here is the Tempore illo legend. Another, even more vivid one is the hagiography concerning St. Stanislaus. A corpus of texts devoted to this martyr emerged in the mid-13th century. Our point of reference will be the most extensive of these works, Vita maior s. Stanislai.8 Its author was Wincenty of Kielcza, a Dominican from the monastery of the Holy Trinity in Cracow and prior to that he had been a cathedral canon from Cracow, a man from a family of knights who had settled in the Opole region. In his work he draws extensively on the Vita minor s. Stanislai, copying entire chapters from it.9 Vita minor may have, in fact, been written by him as well. The Polish roots of the hagiographer are beyond doubt, and when it comes to Vita maior, it conveys a strong expression of Polish national consciousness, as cultivated among the clerical elites of Cracow. Suffice it to say that the work in question formulates for the first time – and so emphatically – the ideology of unification. That is, the author expresses his hope that Poland, divided into separate principalities, would become united again and regain the crown it had lost following the murder of St. Stanislaus by Boleslaus the Generous. Wincenty of Kielcza not only expresses such a view, but also justifies it, citing

7 My remarks can be found in Roman Michałowski, “The Nine-Week Lent in Boleslaus the Brave’s Poland. A Study of the First Piasts’ Religious Policy,” APH 89 (2004), 5–50, here 46–47. 8 Vita sancti Stanislai Cracoviensis episcopi (Vita maior), ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 319– 439 (hereafter cited as VSMaior). For more on the Vita minor and Vita maior of St. Stanislaus, see Wojciech Drelicharz, Unifying the Kingdom of Poland, 113–128, 147–190 including the literature on the subject. 9 Vita s. Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis (Vita minor), ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 238–285 (hereafter cited as VSMinor).

170

Michałowski

a theological argument and an elaborate historical disquisition.10 As a result, the work, hagiographic in its nature, acquired distinct historiographic features. What is the attitude towards the Germans against this background of intensely experienced Polishness? There are very few references to them. Drawing on Gallus Anonymous’ chronicle, Wincenty describes Otto III’s visit to Poland.11 He emphasizes the role played by the emperor in raising Boleslaus the Brave to the rank of king: Otto places his crown on the Polish ruler’s head, thus consecrating him as king, and offers him, in addition to the crown, other royal insignia as well. Wincenty was fully aware of the fact that Otto was a Roman Emperor – this is how he explicitly refers to him. He also claims that during the events in question Boleslaus became an imperial associate and friend. The hagiographer took the Roman references from Gallus, adding that after visiting Boleslaus, Otto returned to Germany. Thus, the author knew that the emperor should be linked to Germany and this knowledge by no means diminished his positive attitude towards him. Significantly, the word used at this point of the narrative in Vita minor sancti Stanislai is not Alemania but patria.12 This suggests a positive attitude of the author towards Germany. There are positive overtones also in other details given by Wincenty in the Vita maior: it is precisely in Germany that Casimir the Restorer received his high-quality education and when he returns to Poland from exile, he receives military support from the emperor, who was residing in Germany at the time. While the second piece of information is partly supported by Gallus, the first is the hagiographer’s own invention.13 It should be noted that Casimir the Restorer occupied an important and by all accounts positive place in Polish historical memory, and became a figure of legend in the 13th century at the latest.14 Without him it would be impossible to understand Poland’s history. In

10 In addition to W. Drelicharz’s study quoted above, see also Paweł Żmudzki, “Liber de passione i Vita maior s. Stanislai. Na marginesie książki Wojciecha Drelicharza o idei zjednoczenia Królestwa,” Kwartalnik Historyczny 122 (2015), 855–875; Zbigniew Dalewski, “Przeszłość zrytualizowana: tradycja królewskich koronacji,” Przeszłość w kulturze średniowiecznej Polski 2, ed. Halina Manikowska (Warszawa, 2018), 29–57, here 30–31. 11 VSMaior I, chap. 3, 365–366. 12 VSMinor, chap. 20, 269. 13 VSMaior II, chap. 9, 380; chap. 12, 382. 14 Pierre David, Casimir le Moine et Boleslas le Pénitent, Études historiques et littéraires sur la Pologne médiévale 5 (Paris, 1932); Inga Stembrowicz, “Podanie o Kazimierzu Mnichu w polskim dziejopisarstwie do końca XIV wieku, [A story about Kazimierz Mnich in Polish historiography until the end of the 14th centur]” Symboliczne i realne podstawy tożsamości społecznej w średniowieczu, eds. Sławomir Gawlas and Paweł Żmudzki (Warszawa, 2017), 222–282.

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans

171

such circumstances, positive references to Germany and the Germans in the context of this ruler appear especially telling. References to the Germans can also be found in the third part of the Vita, which contains descriptions of miracles worked by St. Stanislaus after his death. The accounts are taken and adapted from one or two reports. In 1250 a papal commission was established, featuring Archbishop Pełka of Gniezno, Bishop Thomas of Wrocław, and Abbot Henry of Lubiąż. The aim of the commission was to compile the necessary documentation for the canonization of St. Stanislaus, specifically, to collect accounts of miracles attributed to him. The commission’s report was lost, yet we can get some idea about its contents on the basis of another report, drawn up in 1252 by the Franciscan James of Velletri, whose task was to verify the work of the commission.15 Thus, the third part of the Vita mentions a German woman named Adelaide, “good and pious”. She twice had a vision in which she was told to order the cathedral custodian to elevate the body of St. Stanislaus. She was rewarded with a miraculous healing. It should be noted that in one of these visions, the woman saw the holy bishop himself and he spoke to her in German.16 The elevation was an important act in the development of the cult of Stanislaus, of which the hagiographer was, of course, well aware.17 As we can read elsewhere, a German priest regains his sight thank to St. Stanislaus.18 Wincenty of Kielcza writes about a girl of the same nationality. She was punished at the tomb of the saint for misleading the faithful by pretending with her garments to be a virgin.19 Guided by the spirit of penance, she confesses her guilt in public. Finally, the hagiographer describes the miracle of the healing of the German Wiker’s two sons. This was St. Stanislaus’ response to Wiker’s prayer and votive offering.20 In all the cases in question the hagiographer mentions the nationality of the protagonist of the miracle. However, the people described in the 15 Miracula sancti Stanislai, Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 285–318; more recent edition: Cuda świętego Stanisława [Miracles of Saint Stanislaus], ed. Zbigniew Perzanowski, trans. J. Pleziowa, Analecta Cracoviensia 11 (1979), 47–141. On the oldest collections of the miracles of St. Stanislaus, see Aleksandra Witkowska, “Trzynastowieczne miracula św. Stanisława biskupa krakowskiego, [The thirteenth-century miracula of St. Stanisław, the bishop of Krakow]” ead., Sancti Miracula Peregrinationes, 212–225. 16 VSMaior III, chap. 5, 397–398. 17 Maria Starnawska, “Dominikanie, św. Jacek i elewacja szczątków św. Stanisława przez biskupa Prandotę, [Dominicans, St. Jacek and the elevation of the remains of St. Stanisław by Bishop Prandota]” in Mendykanci w średniowiecznym Krakowie, eds. Krzysztof Ożóg, Tomasz Gałuszka, Anna Zajchowska (Kraków, 2008), 407–424. 18 VSMaior III, chap. 9, 412–414. 19 VSMaior III, chap. 46, 423–424. 20 VSMaior III, chap. 30, 414.

172

Michałowski

Third Book of the Vita include individuals whose nationality is not mentioned, but who have German names. A name alone is not enough to draw conclusions about ethnicity. Poles did sometimes assume German names, for example through family ties; and the other way around – Germans assumed Polish names, although this may have been rarer in the beginning. In the 13th–14th centuries, as well as in later periods, there were many Germans living in Cracow and other Polish cities and who played a significant role in the economy and politics.21 The cities also had a Polish population. In Cracow itself the Poles were a minority, but in the environs of the city they were a dominant force, both politically and in terms of numbers. This ethnic mosaic is reflected in descriptions of miracles by St. Stanislaus from the Vita maior.22 In addition to the Germans, there are Poles presented as both the people who experience the miracles and as members of their families and witnesses. There are significantly more Poles. Yet what matters the most for us is the fact that the hagiographer is as positive about the Germans as he is about his compatriots. Around 1320 the Vita maior of St. Stanislaus was rewritten in Cracow and became known from its first words as Tradunt.23 What is important from our point of view is the fact that the positive information about Germans and Germany from the Vita maior is transferred unchanged into the rewritten version. Its author mentions Otto III’s role at the Congress of Gniezno and the name of the country to which the emperor returns after the congress.24 And he writes about everything that links Casimir the Restorer to that country.25 Listing Stanislaus’ miracles, the hagiographer mentions the German woman Adelaide and cites the scene in which the saint spoke to her in her mother 21

Jerzy Rajman, Kraków. Zespół osadniczy. Proces lokacji. Mieszczanie do roku 1333 [Cracow. Settlement complex. Location process. Townsmen until 1333], Akademia Pedagogiczna im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie. Prace Monograficzne 375 (Kraków, 2004), 344–350 and passim. 22 On the question of ethnicity in 13th century collections of miracles in Lesser Poland, see Grzegorz Pac, “Niemcy w trzynastowiecznych miraculach krakowskich, [Germans in the 13th-century Krakow miracula]” Monarchia, społeczeństwo, tożsamość. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza, eds. K. Gołąbek et alii], Warszawa, 2020, s. 431–451). 23 [Vita Tradunt] Vita s. Stanislai, Martini Galli Chronicon […], ed. Joannes Vincentius Brandtkie (Varsaviae, 1824), 319–380. For more on this work, see Krzysztof Ożóg, Kultura umysłowa w Krakowie w XIV wieku. Środowisko duchowieństwa świeckiego [Intelectual Culture in Krakow in the 14th Century. The environment of secular clergy], Prace Komisji Historycznej. Polska Akademia Nauk. Oddział w Krakowie 49 (Wrocław, 1987), 97–99; Drelicharz, Idea zjednoczenia królestwa, 316–326; Węcowski, Początki Polski w pamięci, 88–91. I support the dating of the piece proposed by W. Drelicharz. 24 [Vita Tradunt] Vita s. Stanislai, 322–323. 25 [Vita Tradunt] Vita s. Stanislai, 323–324, 336.

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans

173

tongue.26 We need to bear in mind that although the hagiographer copied entire pages from the original, he does introduce some thoughtful changes. Some stemmed from his desire to improve the composition of the work, others are an expression of very clear ideological views. We should, therefore, conclude that if the author introduced elements into the original which shed positive light on the Germans, he did not find these elements disturbing. This is the least that can be said. It is also worth looking at what is called the Miracula s. Adalberti, a collection that presents the saint’s posthumous story.27 It is part of a larger whole, never published and comprising the Vita, Miracula, and Translatio (In partibus Germaniae, BHL 43). The work originated just a few years before 1295, most likely in Gniezno.28 It is part of a series of Polish hagiographic works with clear ideological-political connotations.29 What is striking in it is the description of the events accompanying Otto III’s arrival at the tomb of St. Adalbert.30 In this description the anonymous author used Gallus Anonymous’ chronicle, Vita s. Stanislai minor and Vita s. Stanislai maior, but he provides his own ideological interpretation of the Congress of Gniezno, featuring a thesis that St. Adalbert was the originator of the Polish crown. What is important from our point of view is the hagiographer’s opinion that as a result of Boleslaus the Brave’s coronation by Otto III, Polish dukes became independent from Roman kings. We can see in this a polemic with tendencies present at the time in Silesia, where political support was sought from the Roman king (Henry Probus’ homage to Rudolf I)31 and where political thought was developing accordingly (Chronica Polonorum also referred to as Chronicon Polono-Silesiacum).32 The main reason why I have chosen this particular work is the following: the hagiographer states that after leaving Gniezno, the emperor returned home, thus leaving out the precise phrase “to Germany” found in the Vita maior of St. Stanislaus. If this omission had been deliberate, it would testify to the author’s distancing 26 27 28 29

[Vita Tradunt] Vita s. Stanislai, chap. 24–25, 362–363. Miracula sancti Adalberti, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 221–238. Drelicharz, Idea zjednoczenia królestwa, 249. Przemysław Wiszewski, “Wokół wyobrażeń i propagandy władzy królewskiej Piastów, [Around the images and propaganda of the royal power of the Piast dynasty]” in Proměna středovýchodní a vrcholného středovžěku, eds. Martin Wihoda and Lukáš Reitinger (Brno, 2010), 416–483, here 458–460; Drelicharz, Idea zjednoczenia królestwa, 247–258. 30 Miracula sancti Adalberti, chap. 9, 235–237. 31 Jurek, “Plany koronacyjne Henryka Probusa,” 16–17. 32 Kronika polska, 604–656. On the ideology expressed in the work, see Drelicharz, Idea zjednoczenia królestwa, 199–240; my point of view, Roman Michałowski, Princeps fundator. Studium z dziejów kultury politycznej w Polsce X–XIII wieku, [A study of the history of political culture in Poland in the 10th–13th centuries] 2nd ed. (Warszawa, 1993), 115–127.

174

Michałowski

himself from Germany. On the other hand – and this has to be very clearly pointed out – the Miracula sancti Adalberti lacks any other traces of aversion to the Germans, something so strong in those days among the Gniezno clergy, and emphatically evidenced by a 1285 letter from Archbishop Jakub Świnka to three Roman Curial cardinals.33 Therefore, the omission in question may be of no significance. Let us now focus on 13th–15th centuries hagiography from Lesser Poland. It makes up a substantial – given the conditions in the Middle Ages in Poland – corpus of texts, containing both vitae and miracula. The protagonist of the Life of St. Kinga34 (Kunigunda) – a work written in the 1320s following a commission from the Poor Clares of Stary Sącz – is a Hungarian princess who marries Boleslaus the Chaste, Duke of Sandomierz and later also of Cracow.35 At the time he was undoubtedly the most powerful among the Polish dukes, ruling a province that made him the honorary leader of the Piasts. The anonymous author of the Vita, perhaps a Franciscan, of course was aware of the saint’s foreign origins and her international family connections; moreover, he strongly emphasizes them. At the very beginning of his work he presents, with great panache, Kinga’s genealogy,36 beginning with her grandfather, King Andrew of Hungary, who married St. Hedwig’s stepsister. His children from the marriage included a son Béla and a daughter St. Elizabeth. Béla, also King of Hungary, was the father of Kinga, whose mother was Mary, daughter of the Greek Emperor. The emperor came from the family of Emperor Nero, while Mary’s mother came from the family of Catherine, the great saint, virgin and martyr. Apart from Kinga, Béla and Mary had many other children: Anna married the Duke of Croatia, Margaret became a Dominican nun, Constance married a Ruthenian prince and in those days many miracles happened through her intercession. Elizabeth was given in marriage to the Duke of Bavaria, while Yolanda – to the Duke of Greater Poland. The hagiographer adds that Béla and Mary’s son Stephen had a daughter named Mary. She married King Charles of Sicily and their son was St. Louis. Another

33 Codex diplomaticus Majoris Poloniae 1 (Poznaniae, 1877), no. 616, 574–575. On Jakub Świnka’s anti-German views, see Nowacki, “Arcybiskup Jakub Świnka,”, 107–120. 34 Vita sanctae Kyngae, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 682–731 (hereafter cited as VK). On this source, see Maria Helena Witkowska, “Vita sanctae Kyngae ducissae Cracoviensis jako źródło hagiograficzne, [Vita sanct. K. duc. as historicla source]” Roczniki Humanistyczne 10 (1961) no. 2, 41–162; Michalski, Kobiety i świętość, 48–53. 35 On Kinga, see Barbara Kowalskia, Święta Kinga. Rzeczywistość i legenda. Studium źródłoznawcze [Saint Kinga. Reality and legend. A source study] (Kraków, 2008). 36 VK, chap. 1, 683–685.

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans

175

son, Coloman, Duke of Ruthenia, married Salomea, daughter of Leszek, Duke of Cracow.37 The author presents a very broad geographical panorama of his protagonist’s family connections stretching from Sicily to Poland and from Bavaria to Ruthenia, and his description contains the names of rulers of various countries and peoples. The reasons why the hagiographer decided to compile such a list are clear: it was about explaining the sources of Kinga’s sainthood. He saw them in the excellence of her family, manifested in holiness and secular power and dignity.38 Hence the presence of such an abundance of saints as well as rulers, including Emperor Nero, as found in the genealogy. The very subject matter of the work or, to be more precise, the way of understanding it, prompted the author to think in terms of nationality. A question arises: what place in this panorama of countries and nationalities is occupied by the Germans? The hagiographer is somewhat reticent to refer to this country. The name of Bavaria is mentioned, but there is no information about the origins of St. Hedwig and about the husband of St. Elizabeth. It is difficult to say whether these omissions hide the author’s negative attitude towards the Germans, but this reticence should, nevertheless, be noted. How is the question of nationality presented in the remaining chapters of the work? The pages of the Vita feature the names of nuns from the Stary Sącz convent. In addition to Polish names there are also German names, but whether there were German nuns in the convent remains unclear.39 The author does not refer to nor does he comment on this. Elsewhere we find a reference to a sister named Elizabeth Hungara, who is most certainly a Hungarian.40 In this case the context would indicate the hagiographer’s positive attitude toward this nationality. The same opinion emerges from a cry of a demon which possessed 37 Not all genealogical facts given by the author of the Vita are true, see Witkowska, “Vita sanctae Kyngae,” 119 with footnote 264 on pp. 119–120. 38 On the holy dynasties in Central Europe in the 13th–14th centuries, see Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe, trans. Éva Pálmei (Cambridge, 2002), 195–294; Michalski, Kobiety i świętość, 164–180 (both also mention Saint Kinga). The question of holy dynasties in the high and late Middle Ages was tackled by André Vauchez, “‘Beata stirps’. Sainteté et lignage en Occident aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles,” Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval. Actes du Colloque de Paris (6–8 juin 1974) organisé par l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (VIe Section) en collaboration avec le Collège de France et l’Ecole Française de Rome, eds. Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff, Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 30 (Roma,1977), 397–407; idem, La sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Age, Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 241, (Roma, 1981), 204–215, 256–272. 39 VK, chap. 20, 704. 40 VK, chap. 64, 730.

176

Michałowski

some poor wretch. When Kinga was approaching, the demon moaned: woe is me, the Hungarian is coming!41 The subject matter of this paper leads inevitably to the question as to whether the author refers to Germans, calling them explicitly by this name. Indeed, he does, and – this has to be noted straightaway – the references are accompanied by a negative tone. At some point the hagiographer says that after the death of Leszek the Black, the Germans hostiliter seize the region of Sącz and with the help of some magnates build a burg. The princess goes there to restore peace and a knight named Peter shoots at her with a bow, nearly hitting her. The godmother of Peter – a Pole, as the context suggests – was Kinga.42 Thus, the Germans not only are invaders but also try to corrupt the Poles. We know from other sources that these were troops of Henry Probus, a Piast duke, but for Kinga’s hagiographer they were simply Germans (of course, the army of the ruler in question did include knights of this nationality).43 Worthy of note is also Chapter 59, which begins with the following statement: “One day, when the war waged by the godless was on the rise and when the Germans sought to create a rift in the monastery …”44 We do not know what ‘the rift’ in the Stary Sącz monastery intends to indicate, but there is no doubt that the hagiographer is offering a negative testimony about the Germans, whom, on the one hand, he accuses of trying to do great harm to the Poor Clares’ convent and on the other he compares to some godless warmongers. In the course of his account, the author makes his intention more specific: the citizens – of the town of Stary Sącz, as we can imagine – thus Germans45 invite in robbers who attacked the monastery and who only are forced to flee thanks to the saint’s prayers. The Miracula of St. Kinga,46 which, as is often assumed, was written by an author other than that of the Vita, comes from 1329 and is based on earlier reports. A large majority of the individuals mentioned in the collection were 41 VK, chap. 37, 712. 42 VK, chap. 42, 717. 43 Rocznik Traski, [The Traska annal] ed. August Bielowski, MPH 2 (Lwów, 1872), 852; cf. Marek Barański, Dominium sądeckie. Od książęcego okręgu grodowego do majątku klasztoru klarysek sądeckich [The dominion of the Sącz region. From the princely castle district to the property of the convent of Poor Clares in Nowy Sącz] (Warsaw, 1992), 106. 44 VK, cap. 59, 724: “Quadam vice guerra impiorum increscente et Teutonis discidium claustro ordinare cupientibus”. 45 On the ethnic relations in Stary Sącz, soon after the foundation, see Feliks Kiryk, “Dzieje miasta w okresie staropolskim,” [The history of the town in the Old Polish period] in Historia Starego Sącza od czasów najdawniejszych do 1939 roku, ed. Henryk Barycz (Kraków, 1979), 45–113, at 49. 46 Miracula sanctae Kyngae, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 732–744.

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans

177

certainly Poles. This is evidenced by the names as well as other information about them. However, there are two entries almost certainly referring to Germans.47 Both concern people living in Nowy Sącz – a town inhabited primarily by Germans.48 But there are other arguments as well. Although several of the miraculously healed individuals have the Christian name of Margaret, the Margaret from Chapter 13 has a father with a German name, and in both cases the witnesses include people with German and Christian names, but no people with Polish names. Regardless of their nationality, people presented in the analyzed source act more or less in the same manner and therefore it is impossible to draw on this basis any conclusions about the hagiographer’s national stereotypes. What can be said for certain is that in the hagiographer’s view, Kinga’s miraculous powers affected people regardless of their nationality – Poles, Germans and Hungarians. There is an interesting piece of information in Chapter 9, according to which acknowledging that St. Kinga came from the royal family of the Hungarian nation was a prerequisite for experiencing a miracle from her.49 We can see in this the author’s highly positive attitude to the nation in question. However, elsewhere the hagiographer cites an anecdote which does not show the Hungarians in a good light.50 The Life of St. Salomea in its present form is a kind of palimpsest.51 The vita written in the second half of the 13th century was mixed with a 14th-century hagiographic legend. It is not always easy to separate the earlier text from the later one. However, it is assumed that the miracula forming part of the Vita were written down in their original form in the 13th century (beginning in 1269), as is evidenced by the dates of the various miracles. From the entire 47 Miracula sanctae Kyngae, chap. 9, 734–735; chap. 13, 736. 48 Dzieje miasta Nowego Sącza 1 [History of the town Nowy Sącz], ed. Feliks Kiryk (Warszawa-Kraków, 1992), 91–92. 49 Miracula sanctae Kyngae, chap. 9, 734. I comment on this fragment in an article, Roman Michałowski, “Wizja Kingi, księżnej krakowskiej. Przyczynek do historii świętych rodzin w średniowieczu,” [The vision of Kinga, Duchess of Krakow. Contribution to the history of holy families in the Middle Ages] in Księga. Teksty o świecie średniowiecznym ofiarowane Hannie Zaremskiej, ed. Halina Manikowska (Warszawa, 2018), 201–216. 50 Miracula sanctae Kyngae, chap. 20, 741–742. 51 Vita sanctae Salomeae reginae Haliciensis, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, 770–796, post mortem miracles 784–796. On this vita, see Brygida Kürbisówna, “Żywot bł. Salomei jako źródło historyczne,” [Life of Bl. Salomea as a historical source] in Studia historica. W 35-lecie pracy naukowej Henryka Łowmiańskiego, ed. Aleksander Gieysztor et al. (Warszawa, 1958), 145–165. St. Salomea and her early cult have been discussed recently by Elżbieta Sander, Błogosławiona Salomea i klasztory klarsysek w Zawichoście, Skale i Krakowie do końca XV wieku [Blessed Salome and the convents of the Poor Clares in Zawichost, Skala and Kraków until the end of the 15th century] (Kraków, 2015), 41–68.

178

Michałowski

work it is only those miracles which attract our attention. The description of the miracles mentions primarily Poles. In some cases, however, we are right to assume that the individuals in question – for example, Gertrude and her husband Herman, (the latter being a citizen of Cracow) – are German.52 This is suggested by the German names of both spouses and the fact that they live in a city that was predominantly German. In one case we can be certain of this nationality: a woman who experiences a miracle is referred to by the hagiographer as German.53 These people behave – let us put it this way – normally, and are not different from the more numerous Poles found in the miracula of St. Salomea. From the point of view of source studies, we are dealing with a quite similar situation in the case of the Life of St. Hyacinth.54 In its present form the work comes from the mid-14th century, but it contains a list of miracles written down in the second half of the previous century. The Vita was written by Stanisław, a Polish Dominican from the Cracow monastery. Polishness has a great significance for the hagiographer. He begins his work by saying that through St. Hyacinth the Light of God came to the Poles, and elsewhere says emphatically that the saint was a Pole and that, sent by St. Dominic, he had brought the Dominican Order to his homeland. Others sent with St. Hyacinth were Blessed Ceslaus and a German named Herman, who, however, did not reach Poland, but remained in Friesach. Herman, like his two companions, a member of the entourage of Bishop Ivo of Cracow, is presented in a positive context and the fact that he stayed in Germany does not seem to be a moral charge against him. That he wanted to concentrate on working in his homeland was understandable. There are no more explicit references to the Germans in the work. The descriptions of miracles feature German names as well as Cracow burghers. However, these facts are not sufficient for us to be able to say definitely that a given individual was a German.55 Worthy of note is the following point. The vita was written by a Pole from a Polish monastery located in a German city, 52 Vita sanctae Salomeae, chap. 7, art. 32, 794–795. 53 Vita sanctae Salomeae, chap. 7, art. 20, 791. 54 De Vita et miraculis sancti Iacchonis (Hyacinthi) ordinis fratrum praedicatorum, ed. L. Ćwikliński, MPH 4, 818–903. On St. Hyacinth, his early cult and sources for these topics, see Raymond J. “La vie de s. Hyacinthe du lecteur Stanislas envisagée comme source historique,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 27 (1957), 5–38; Święty Jacek Odrowąż. Studia i źródła, [Saint Jacek Odrowaz. Studies and Sources] ed. Marek Zdanek, Studia Dominikańskiego Instytutu Historycznego w Krakowie 2 (Kraków, 2007); Anna Zajchowska, “Medieval Hagiography of St Hyacinth,” Les saints et leur culte, 195–209. 55 Pac, “Niemcy w trzynastowiecznych miraculach krakowskich”.

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans

179

indeed in its very heart, just one hundred meters from the Main Market Square. It contains no trace of aversion to Germans. Let us look at the collections of miracles compiled in 15th century Cracow.56 As we read them, we come to the same conclusions as when we read the 13th–14th centuries texts mentioned earlier. Germans are rarely mentioned there as those who experience miracles. They appear in the same context as Poles, with the hagiographers treating both with the same sympathy.57 It is difficult to speak of any national stereotypes emerging from the analyzed descriptions of miracles. The hagiographer described the Germans and the Poles in the same fashion – as pious people turning trustingly to the saint for help. What deserves a separate discussion are the miracles of St. Hyacinth from the late 15th century.58 Two out of the seven entries mention Germans.59 We do not have to make guesses as to their nationality; the authors of the entries mention it explicitly. In both cases the question is about liberating the persons in question from fetters, with one of them being described as a fratricide. A question arises as to whether the fact that the two Germans – or at least one of them – being presented as criminals should not be regarded as a manifestation of negative national stereotypes. Such a conclusion would be wrong. First of all, the analyzed entries provide an account of events that did indeed take place. Germans in fetters are not a product of human imagination; such people were present in Cracow at that time, and in this case, they came to the local Dominican monastery to provide an account of the miracle. Incidentally, the author of the first entry was German himself, as is suggested by a note in the margin commenting on the entry. It was written by the author of the subsequent entries. The 15th century brought two lives of saints that were significant for the Poles of that time. The author of both was Jan Długosz. The great historiographer

56 Aleksandra Witkowska, “Zbiory krakowskich miracula z XV i początku XVI wieku,” [Collections of Krakow miracula from the 15th and early 16th centuries] (1st ed., 1984), in ead., Sancti Miracula Peregrinationes, 226–240; ead., Kulty pątnicze piętnastowiecznego Krakowa [Pilgrimage cults of 15th-century Krakow], Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. Instytut Geografii Historycznej Kościoła w Polsce. Biblioteka Historii Społeczno-Religijnej 3 (Lublin, 1984). 57 E.g. Miracula venerabilis patris Prandothe, episcopi Cracoviensis, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 4, chap. 32, 476; Miracula s. Iohannis Cantii, ed. Wojciech Kętrzyński, MPH 6 (Kraków, 1893), chap. 16, 487. 58 Anna Zajchowska and Maciej Zdanek, “Mirakula świętego Jacka z lat 1488–1500. Edycja krytyczna, [Miracle of Saint Jack from 1488–1500. Critical edition]” Studia Źródłoznawcze 46 (2009), 95–105. 59 Ibid., chap. 3 and 5; 102, 103.

180

Michałowski

wrote a Life of St. Stanislaus60 and a Life of St. Kinga.61 These texts contribute little, if anything at all, to the present analysis. They are literary adaptations of earlier works. There is some factographic amplification, but it is of no significance to us, as it almost never concerns Germany and the Germans. At most, we can point to a fragment in the Life of St. Kinga, where its author writes about the misfortunes that befell Poland after the murder of St. Stanislaus. The country fell victim to raids by the Bohemians, Saxons, Teutonic Knights and Germans.62 It is difficult to say whether any anti-German prejudice emerges from this sentence or whether it is simply an account of the historical reality. Długosz took the anti-German fragments from a 14th century Vita s. Kingae, without changing their meaning, as was the case with the meaning of the descriptions of miracles which have Germans as their protagonists. Let us try to draw some conclusions from the material presented here. The Germans and Germanness appear in Polish hagiographic sources in three roles: as rulers, as a country, and as people living in Poland. Some of the works tackle key questions from Poland’s history, so it is not surprising that Otto III occupies such a prominent place in them, so closely linked was he with Poland’s history and so highly regarded in the Polish tradition. Germany as a country appears mainly in a historical aspect, with regard to the emperor in question and, above all, to Casimir the Restorer. References to the past were also an opportunity to formulate political theses concerning the present and this is the context in which Roman kings appear and the kingdom they symbolize. Finally, Germans as ordinary people were, first of all, settlers living in Poland. All in all, however, the Germans and Germanness occupy limited space in Polish medieval hagiography. This is by no means obvious, considering the fact that in the second half of the 13th and first half of the following century the relations between a part of the Polish population and settlers from the West were sometimes tense.63 A classic example here is Archbishop Jakub Świnka’s 1285 letter to three Roman Curial cardinals – extensively commented on in the literature on the subject – in which the archbishop presents the Germans as 60 Vita sanctissimi Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis, eds. Ignatius Polkowski and Żegota Pauli, Joannis Dlugossii senioris canonici Cacoviensis Opera 1 (Cracoviae, 1887), 1–181. 61 Vita beatae Kunegundis, Joannis Dlugossii senioris canonici Cacoviensis Opera, 183–342. 62 Vita beatae Kunegundis, chap. 11, 228. 63 Benedykt Zientara, “Konflikty narodowościowe na pograniczu niemiecko-słowiańskim w XIII–XIV wieku i ich zasięg społeczny,” [National conflicts on the German-Slavic border in the 13th–14th centuries and their social scope] Przegląd Historyczny 59 (1968), 197–212; Tomasz Jurek, “Polska droga do korony królewskiej 1295–1300–1320,” [Polish road to the royal crown 1295–1300–1320] Proměna středovýchodní a vrcholného středovžěku, 139–191, here 151–152; toning this down: Gawlas, “‘Verus heres’. Z badań,” 77–104.

Polish Hagiographic Sources and Their View of the Germans

181

dangerous to Poland and Polishness.64 We can, of course, argue that the source in question represents the point of view of the clergy or, to be more precise, its elite, but hagiographic works were written precisely by clergymen and by no means rank-and-file clergymen at that. On the other hand, we know that Jakub Świnka’s letter is not the only such testimony. We cannot fail to mention the Annals of the Poznań Chapter, which, under the year 1309, contain an accusation that the Germans want to exterminate the entire Polish nation.65 The list of examples is extensive. Another conclusion is as follows: sometimes a negative opinion about the Germans is not present although it could be expected. I mean here, especially, the Miracula s. Adalberti. After all, it is a work written in Gniezno at the same time as Jakub Świnka’s letter. And yet the Miracula s. Adalberti contains no unequivocal traces of resentment towards the Germans. On the contrary – the author refers to the figure of Otto III and presents him in a very positive light. He attributes to the emperor a great role as someone who glorified Boleslaus the Brave and with him Poland as well. It was not only the view of this particular hagiographer, but also that of Wincenty of Kielcza, not to mention the classic of medieval Polish historiography, Gallus Anonymous. Jakub Świnka’s letter provides evidence – if evidence is needed at all – that the empire was unequivocally associated with Germany. This, however, did not affect the opinion of the author of the Miracula s. Adalberti about the emperor. Of course, as we remember that his thesis was that Poland was independent of the Roman kings, but this was a political view and not a national stereotype. Despite the relative scarcity of the available source material, we can say something about the attitude of hagiographers to the German state and the German country as well as the Germans. I have just mentioned the positive opinion about Otto III; let me also add that in the context of Casimir the Restorer’s case, we see Wincenty of Kielcza’s approval of Germany and of its ruler. “Ordinary” Germans mentioned in the descriptions of miracles are presented sympathetically, as pious people who trust in God. As a matter of fact, there is only one work in which a negative opinion seems to prevail. I mean here the Life of St. Kinga. It is not difficult to explain why. We are dealing here with a Polish dynastic monastery, which, just like the entire region of Sącz, supported Ladislaus the Elbow-High in his fight to take control of Lesser Poland, first in his conflict with the Premyslids and then with

64 Codex diplomaticus Majoris Poloniae 1, no. 616, 574–575. 65 Rocznik kapituły poznańskiej [The Annals oft he Poznan chapter], ed. Brygida Kürbis, Roczniki wielkopolskie. MPH. series nova 6 (Warsaw, 1962), 55.

182

Michałowski

Cracow.66 At the time when the analysed work was written, the conflict with the Cracow townsmen, the apogee of which came with the rebellion of Vogt (advocatus) Albert, was still fresh and painful in people’s memory.67 Even if initially social and not national,68 the conflict was soon defined as national by Ladislaus’ supporters, with the ruler representing the Polish, and Cracow the German side. However, there was no automatism here. In Tradunt, the Life of St. Stanislaus, which originated in the same atmosphere, the hagiographer sided with Ladislaus’ cause and yet there are no anti-German elements in the work. A question arises as to the reasons behind the discrepancy between the anti-German attitude of some part of the Polish elites, including ecclesiastical elites, and the usually positive attitude of Polish hagiographers about Germans and Germanness. This contradiction can be explained as follows: the Germans in Polish hagiography are either protagonists of events from a distant past, protagonists who played a positive role in Poland’s history, or the faithful gathering around the tombs of Polish saints, piously asking for their intercession. The authors of the works in question could feel nothing but sympathy for both groups. I have pointed out that in medieval Poland the significance of the cult of saints and, consequently, of hagiographic writing was markedly smaller than in other countries of Europe – at least Western Europe – at the time. It could be described as a Polish specificity. The question is: was Polish hagiography’s positive attitude to an otherwise hated nationality also uniquely Polish? I will explore this in the future. 66 Barański, Dominium sądeckie, 122–123. 67 An overview of the literature concerning the rebellion of Vogt Albert is provided by Anna Grabowska, “Bunt wójta Alberta w historiografii polskiej,” [The rebellion of mayor Albert in Polish historiography] in Bunt wójta Alberta: Kraków i Opole we wzajemnych związkach w XIV wieku, ed. Jerzy Rajman, Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Historica 13 (Kraków, 2013), 19–31. 68 Sławomir Gawlas, O kształt zjednoczonego Królestwa. Niemieckie władztwo terytorialne a geneza społeczno-ustrojowej Polski [For the shape of a united kingdom. German territorial sovereignty and the genesis of Poland’s social and political system], Res humanae. Studia 1, 2nd ed. (Warsaw, 2000), 94.

part 3 German Views Regarding Poles in the Middle Ages – Hagiographical, Historiographical and Medieval German Literature Sources

∵

chapter 9

Poland and the Poles in Early and High Medieval German Historiography Volker Scior Questions concerning the perceptions of neighbors have been studied multiple times in recent years. Moreover, for the Early and High Middle Ages (the era which is the focus in this paper), there are already some studies at hand. They have varying topics, of course. As far as the Frankish or German realm is concerned, the focus has mainly been on the perceptions of northern Europe like Denmark, Norway and Sweden,1 as well as on the western Frankish kingdom and France in the West2 or the Slavs in the East.3 When in the following what we call “Poland” and “the Poles” are put in the centre of our focus, then this refers more to the volume’s title than it can be reasonably derived from a general meaning of Poland and its inhabitants in contemporary historiography. Regarding the sources, it can be said here at the beginning that terms like Polani or Polonia are seldomly found in the sources.4 It can be said as well that Slavs in general are the focus in some texts, but in the end only a very few sources tell us about what we call Poland or the Poles in later times. This paper’s topic thus lacks a significant base of sources. That is why in the following only a very few representations in historiography can be sketched. Thus, the paper is limited to a few texts from the 11th and 12th centuries in which Slavs and especially ‘Poles’ are described at all. The main focus is on Thietmar of Merseburg, who wrote his chronicle in 1018, Adam of Bremen (1075/80), and Helmold of Bosau (1168/1172). Before turning to these sources, it is necessary to make some general theoretical and methodological statements. 1 Cf. Volker Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde. Identität und Fremdheit in den Chroniken Adams von Bremen, Helmolds von Bosau und Arnolds von Lübeck (Berlin, 2002); David Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden. Vorstellungen und Fremdheitskategorien bei Rimbert, Thietmar von Merseburg, Adam von Bremen und Helmold von Bosau (Berlin, 2004). 2 For the Late Middle Ages cf. e.g. Martin Kintzinger, Westbindungen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa. Auswärtige Politik zwischen dem Reich, Frankreich, Burgund und England in der Regierungszeit Kaiser Sigmunds (Stuttgart, 2000). 3 Cf. e.g. Thomas Wünsch, Deutsche und Slawen im Mittelalter. Beziehungen zu Tschechen, Polen, Südslawen und Russen (München, 2008). 4 This becomes clear very quickly when one searches the digital MGH (www.dmgh.de).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_010

186

Scior

The history of perceptions as a field of historical science deals to a great extent with images of foreigners as present in past historical periods. After the theoretical and methodological foundation within medieval studies, which began in 1980s, the perspective on medieval texts shifted in a general way. By today, it can be regarded as undisputed that the so-called value of a historical source not only depends on its realistic content, which derives from the possibility of reconstructing the ‘reality’ behind the text, but also from the author’s images and ideas as expressed in a medieval text. The effect has been a shift of the historians’ focus from the descriptions to the describers, from the representations to the authors and the conditions of text production.5 It is especially historiographic texts which are suitable for this approach. After the national-historical approaches of earlier times, the interdisciplinary research of clichés, stereotypes, and contemporary knowledge has shown clearly how strong the perspectives on foreign people were defined by old images and traditional knowledge in the sense of prejudices, and how slowly such ‘knowledge’ about other people could be changed. Also aside from imagological studies, the research by medievalists about ‘the other(ness)’ is closely related to the aforementioned approaches of a history of images, ideas, and perceptions.6 5 Cf. Hans-Werner Goetz, Vorstellungsgeschichte. Gesammelte Schriften zu Wahrnehmungen, Deutungen und Vorstellungen im Mittelalter, eds. Anna Aurast, Simon Elling, and Bele Freudenberg (Bochum, 2007); cf. earlier and basic for later reflections: Michael Harbsmeier, “Reisebeschreibungen als mentalitätsgeschichtliche Quellen: Überlegungen zu einer historisch-anthropologischen Untersuchung frühneuzeitlicher deutscher Reisebe­ schreibungen,” in Reiseberichte als Quellen europäischer Kulturgeschichte. Aufgaben und Möglichkeiten der historischen Reiseforschung, eds. Antoni Macząk and Hans Jürgen Teuteberg, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 21 (Wolfenbüttel, 1982), 1–31; Bernd Thum, “Frühformen des Umgangs mit ‘Fremdem’ und ‘Fremden’ in der Literatur des Hochmittelalters. Der ‘Parzival’ Wolframs von Eschenbach als Beispiel,” in Das Mittelalter – Unsere Fremde Vergangenheit, eds. Joachim Kuolt, Harald Kleinschmidt and Peter Dinzelbacher (Stuttgart, 1990), 315–352, here 317: “Die Definition des ‘Fremden’ beinhaltet also immer auch eine offene oder verschwiegene Definition des ‘Eigenen’”. 6 Cf. besides the literature in note 5 (above): Christian Lübke, Fremde im östlichen Europa. Von Gesellschaften ohne Staat zu verstaatlichten Gesellschaften (9.–11. Jahrhundert), Ostmitteleuropa in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 23 (Köln-Weimar-Wien, 2001); HansHenning Kortüm, “Advena sum apud te et peregrinus. Fremdheit als Strukturelement mittelalterlicher conditio humana,” in Exil, Fremdheit und Ausgrenzung in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, eds. Andreas Bihrer, Sven Limbeck and Paul Gerhard Schmidt, Identitäten u. Alteritäten 4 (Würzburg, 2000), 115–135; Marina Münkler, Erfahrung des Fremden. Die Beschreibung Ostasiens in den Augenzeugenberichten des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 2000); Marina Münkler/Werner Röcke, “Der ordo-Gedanke und die Hermeneutik der Fremde im Mittelalter: Die Auseinandersetzung mit den monströsen Völkern des Erdrandes,” in Die Herausforderung durch das Fremde, ed. Herfried Münkler (Berlin, 1998), 701–766; The Stranger in Medieval Society, eds. F.R.P. Akehurst and Stephanie Cain Van D’Elden, Medieval

POLAND IN EARLY AND HIGH MEDIEVAL GERMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

187

Already the interests of a medieval author as revealed in his descriptions determine his representations, for example, of the characteristics or the ‘typical’ behavior of neighbors. Furthermore, the medieval author’s knowledge about foreign neighbors, coming from written sources, oral accounts, or sometimes as an eyewitness himself, form his descriptions. Besides, his ideas of certain values determine his perspective on foreigners or other people. From these criteria which determine the perception, one can reconstruct the author’s ideas or imagined images of neighbors – not, of course, their factual behavior. Thus, studies in the field of the history of perception show that texts about others and foreigners often tell us less about these people than about the author and his own ideas. The significant number of studies in the history of mentalities in medieval travel literature has shown that as well. Specific occasions for writing, the causae scribendi and legendi, the historic-political situations at the time of the writing time, the the principal of a text – all these elements influence the works.7 One effect is that research has come to the understanding that there is a need for detailed case studies in order to examine all the elements which are characteristic of an author and his work. This is, of course, not possible in a very short paper such as this. With reference to early and high medieval perspectives on Poland and the Poles in Frankish-German historiography, the chronicle of bishop Thietmar of Merseburg is essential. Thietmar has been called one of the most interesting figures of the German High Middle Ages.8 His work is very special in different ways, and he cannot be categorized easily in the long row of historiographers in this époque, nor can his chronicle, which was written between 1012 and 1018 and in great part seems to fit the genre of medieval chronicles.9 His ideas of the Cultures 12 (Minneapolis, 1998); Fremdheit und Reisen im Mittelalter, eds. Irene Erfen and Karl-Heinz Spieß (Stuttgart, 1997); Felicitas Schmieder, Europa und die Fremden. Die Mongolen im Urteil des Abendlandes vom 13. bis in das 15. Jahrhundert (Sigmaringen, 1994); Der Umgang mit dem Fremden in der Vormoderne. Studien zur Akkulturation in Bildungshistorischer Sicht, eds. Christoph Lüth, Rudolf W. Keck, and Erhard Wiersing, Beiträge zur Historischen Bildungsforschung 17 (Köln-Weimar-Wien, 1997), 155–193. 7 For a theoretical and methodological reason see Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde. 8 Hans-Werner Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars von Merseburg zu Beginn des 11. Jahrhunderts,” Letopis. Zeitschrift für sorbische Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur 2 (2015), 103–118, here 103. 9 Thietmar von Merseburg, Chronicon, ed. Robert Holtzmann, MGH SSrG N.S. 9 (Berlin, 1955); in German: ed. Werner Trillmich, FSGA 9 (Darmstadt, 1957). On the manuscripts, cf. Klaus Nass, Die Reichschronik des Annalista Saxo und die sächsische Geschichtsschreibung im 12. Jahrhundert, Schriften der MGH 41 (Hannover, 1996), 143–178. Cf. now also Volker Scior, “Der menschliche Körper und seine Grenzen. Die Chronik Thietmars von Merseburg in körpergeschichtlicher Perspektive,” in Historiographie der Grenzwelten. Thietmar von Merseburg (975/6–01.12.1018), ed. Dirk Jäckel (Studien zur Vormoderne 3), (Berlin, 2021–forthcoming).

188

Scior

Slavi have already been studied by others.10 Often in focus have been especially the relations and military conflicts between German, Polish, and Bohemian kings. There are several reasons for the fact that Slavs play an important role in Thietmar’s ideas. One of the most important is that Thietmar himself had personal contacts with Slavs.11 On his father’s as well as on his mother’s side, he was of a high noble lineage and became bishop of Merseburg in 1009 – which was the smallest diocese in the whole Ottonian realm. Its inhabitants were mainly Slavs who had not yet been entirely Christianized. That was, briefly put, the situation in Thietmar’s episcopal see when he was consecrated bishop.12 He did not, like other medieval historiographers, write about foreign people he only knew from oral stories or from literature. Instead we know that he had several personal contacts with Slavs. The seat of Thietmar’s family, the counts of Walbeck, was only some 50 kilometers away from the river Elbe, the border with the Slavs.13 Thietmar had contacts with Slavs very early in his life. When he was only eight years old, the Slavs east of the river rejected Christianity and returned to their old polytheistic religion.14 Thietmar and his family witnessed these events, and even if one must not psychologize these facts from a modern point of view, it is still hard to believe that the chronicler would have stayed completely unimpressed by these experiences. His father, who had married a daughter of the well regarded house of the counts of Stade, was one of the most important people in the entourage of king Otto II until his death in 991 (when Thietmar himself was sixteen), and he had participated in several military actions against the Slavs in ‘Poland’.15 By that time, Thietmar had been educated in the famous cathedral school in Magdeburg which was also attended by nobles from Slavic regions.16 Here, Thietmar must have gained a 10 Cf. David Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden; Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars”; Karlheinz Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” in Thietmars Welt. Ein Merseburger Bischof schreibt Geschichte, Ausstellungskatalog, eds. Axel v. Campenhausen, H. Kunde et al. (Petersberg/Fulda, 2018), 287–305; cf. upcoming: Volker Scior, Thietmar von Merseburg und die Slawen, in Thietmar von Merseburg zwischen Pfalzen, Burgen und Federkiel. Palatium. Studien zur Pfalzenforschung in Sachsen-Anhalt, ed. Stephan Freund (Regensburg, 2020). 11 To these aspects see the introduction of the chronicle in the FSGA (note 9, above) as well as Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 103–108 with further literature, and Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” esp. 289–291. 12 Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” 287–288; Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 103. 13 Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” 289. 14 Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 108. 15 Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” 289. 16 Ibid.

POLAND IN EARLY AND HIGH MEDIEVAL GERMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

189

certain familiarity with the lingua Slavica missionarica. Even if it is uncertain how far knowledge of the Slavic languages reached, it is striking that Thietmar used many Slavic names and expressions in his chronicle even though he did not have to. At the very least he must have had a basic conversancy with the language. Regarding the chronicle, one can say that Thietmar uses the term “Slavi” as a general term for the inhabitants of those regions between the Elbe and Oder that were claimed by the German kings.17 The term Slavi does not mean ‘Slavic speaking people’.18 Still, in Thietmar’s eyes the Slavic regions were united by a common language.19 He often explains the meaning of Slavic names.20 The name Dobrawa of the Bohemian wife of Duke Mieszko of Poland, for example, meant Slavonice ‘the good’ – and Thietmar emphasises that her character was as good as her name since she influenced her husband to be baptized.21 Concerning the Slavic language, Thietmar regards the whole area inhabited by Slavs as a unified whole.22 It is, however, striking that this unifying characteristic is bound to the language. If one regards the (few) passages in which Thietmar explicitly writes ‘Slavi’ and does not mention the language, he is always dealing with the regions and people between the Elbe and Oder.23 Bohemians, Poles and Russians are not once called Slavi explicitly. Thus, for Thietmar, there is no political-ethnical unity of the Slavic people. Russia and the Russians, but also Poland and Bohemia and their inhabitants are always called Ruzzi, Polani oder Bohemi, not once Slavi. Thietmar’s reports are concentrated on the neighbors’ noble classes. The non-noble people are not referred to at all. His historiographic view is concentrated only on the nobles and elites of Poland, and he does not attend to the other groups in the society. His view of the nobles is mostly, but not always, negative. He describes the Polish nobility as being able to enter into a contract or military alliance with the German kings.24 But he reproves Duke Mieszko I, since his wedding was not approved by church authorities;25 and he criticizes Mieszko’s successor, Boleslaw I Chobry, for many reasons.26 He says he is sly 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 109. Ibid. Ibid. Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” 289. Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 109. Ibid., 108–110 with a discussion of further examples from the text. Ibid., 109. Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” 293–296. Ibid., 293. Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden, 248–249, with examples.

190

Scior

like a fox and characterizes him very negatively with stereotypes.27 It can be assumed that the reason for this negative judgment of Boleslaw lies in the fact that he was successful in avoiding a political fragmentation of the Polish realm, a unity which then led to conflicts with the Frankish-German kingdom.28 Thietmar felt quite closely connected to this kingdom. His closeness to the emperors can be read from his text, allowing us to recognize his identification with the German regnum.29 This is one point where we can see that the historiographer’s own identity with certain communities and groups determined what he valued positively or negatively. In Thietmar’s eyes, Boleslaw was an all-time betrayer. While Thietmar always thinks in religious terms and judges the Slavic heathens very negatively, this is not the case in the passages about the Poles, since their nobles had become Christian – in the author’s view ‘already Christianized’, since it was only a question of time until the whole world would be Christianized. To the Christian author it seemed to be the worst of cases; heathens, who in earlier times had been under the influence of the Frankish-German kingdom, now fought in the army of Henry II against the Christian Polish army.30 On the one hand, those passages show that Thietmar regrets the loss of the emperor’s influence over these people; on the other hand they show that a Christian ruler should not have heathen allies.31 As much as Thietmar defends the military campaigns of Henry II against the (Christian) duke of Poland, Boleslaw, he does not endorse at all the alliance of the emperor with the heathen Liutici.32 The political reasons that make the alliance with the heathens advantageous do not overrule his religious objections to this. Compared to historiographical accounts from others, Thietmar’s reports about the Polish dukes and nobility, about alliances and wedding policies, are quite comprehensive. In this point, he is an exception. Particularly Boleslaw I Chrobry and Mieszko are mentioned in other sources,33 but not in detail. Other 27 28 29

Cf. Thietmar of Merseburg, IV, 58. Hengst, “Thietmar und die Slawen,” 293–296. Cf. on this topic: Wolfgang Eggert and Barbara Pätzold, Wir-Gefühl und regnum Saxonum bei frühmittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibern, Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte 31 (Weimar, 1984), 98–119, 273–275. 30 Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 116. 31 Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 116; Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden, 248–250. 32 Goetz, “Die Slawen in der Wahrnehmung Thietmars,” 116. 33 Annales Quedlinburgenses, ed. Martina Giese, MGH SSrG 72 (Hannover, 2004), 518: Boleslaw als dux Poloniae. Cf. Also Annales Magdeburgenses a. 1148, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannover, 1859), 190: “Magdeburgensis archiepiscopus Fridericus et quidam alii principes Saxoniae Polonicis ducibus Bolizlavo et Meseconi in epiphania

POLAND IN EARLY AND HIGH MEDIEVAL GERMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

191

texts from the 11th and 12th centuries report about single local events or settlements, for example the small grouping of houses at Usch, which was in extremis Poloniorum finibus and which is mentioned only because Bishop Otto I of Bamberg passed through it on his way to Gnesen.34 In other texts in a very general manner Poles and Bohemians are counted among the Slavic inhabitants of certain regions.35 In most cases, these ‘reports’ are no more than a short reference or a specific statement. Still, they prove that other historiographers had at least some idea of the Poles and Poland.36 Generally one can say that Poland and the Poles are mentioned only when they play some role for other people or events which in fact were of interest for the Frankish or German historiographers, for example when St. Adalbert performed baptisms there.37 Actually, there is no further information about Poland from contemporary sources. ‘Poland’ and the ‘Polish peoples’ hardly come to the minds of Frankish-German historiographers. That is the reason why only a very few other texts tell us something about these regions. One of them is what is called ‘the church history’ of Hamburg which was written by the cathedral scholaster Adam of Bremen in the last quarter of the 11th century.38 Adam, whose geographical and ethnographical passages are very famous and who reports in detail about the North of Europe,39 also mentions the Poles in some sentences. He counts them among the Slavs close to

34 35 36 37 38

39

Domini occurrentes in Crusawice fedus amicicie cum eis inierunt. Ibi etiam marchio Otto, filius marchionis Adalberti, sororem Polonicorum principum sibi in legitimum matrimonium copulandam suscepit”. Cf. also Wipo: Wiponis Opera, in MGH SSrG 61, ed. Harry Bresslau, (Hannover, 1915), cc. 9 and 29; pp. 31sq and 48; and Hermann of Reichenau: Herimanni Augiensis chronicon a. 1–1054 in MGH SS 5, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, ad a. 1004 and 1032, 118 and 121. Vita of Bishop Otto I. of Bamberg, ed. Jürgen Petersohn, MGH SSrG 71 (Hannover, 1999), 112 with note 10. Vita Heinrici regis, ed. Marcus Stumpf, MGH SSrG 69 (Hannover, 1999), 234: “universis in id ipsum consentientibus Poloniam et Boemiam ceterasque Sclavorum adiacentes regiones”. Cf. e.g. Annalista Saxo ad anno 1021, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 6 (Hannover, 1844), 675. Miracula s. Adalberti, ed. MGH SS 4 (Hannover, 1841), 614: “sanctus Adalbertus in Polonia baptizaverat, cum illuc advenisset pro filia ducis Polonie”. Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler, MGH SSrG 2 (Hannover-Leipzig, 1917; repr. 1993); Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, ed. Werner Trillmich, FSGA 11, 7th ed. (Darmstadt, 2000), 137–499 (with an epilogue by Volker Scior, 758–764). On Adam see also Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde, 29–37. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde. Cf. e.g.: Ove Jørgensen and Tore Nyberg, Sejlruter i Adam af Bremens danske øverden, Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Antikvariskt arkiv 74 (Stockholm, 1992); G.A. van der Toorn-Piebenga, “Friese ontdekkingsreizigers in de elfde eeuw,” It beaken. Tydskrift fan de Fryske Akademy 48/2 (1986), 114–126.

192

Scior

the Baltic Sea, having geographical borders with the Prussians, the Bohemians and the Russians.40 In spite of a divergent use of terms it is clear that the Sclavi form a unity in Adam’s eyes, and the chronicler lays open the aspects which form this unity as far as he sees it. When discussing the question whether the Bohemi and the Polani belonged to the Slavs or not, he argues that they would, since they had the same habitus and the same lingua as other Slavs.41 These characteristics, habitus and lingua, can be regarded as very traditional aspects for the attribution of ethnical identity.42 For this attribution of identity it does not matter if the identity really exists. What is important, however, is that the aspects habitus and lingua constitute the identity in Adam’s mind. The passage shows that Adam looks at the Slavs as an ethnic group that is distinguished from other communities. The lingua is a quite traditional aspect of identity, although it has importance in the actual contexts of the missionary activity as well, since knowledge of the ‘Slavonic language’ was a crucial condition for a successful Christianization of the North. Adam of Bremen knows of the Swedish-Polish alliances under Boleslaw43 and of the suppression of the Poles and their duke Mieszko II by Emperor Konrad in the 1030s.44 By acknowledging only those missionaries who were dispatched to the North specifically by the archbishop of Hamburg himself, he writes his chronicle in opposition to other missionary efforts. He strictly refuses to recognize the influence of other episcopal sees in the Christianization of the North and he criticizes, for example, bishop Osmund who had been consecrated by a Polish archbishop.45 To understand these judgments in Adam’s chronicle concerning the Slavs in general and the Poles in particular, one has to be aware of the purpose of the work and its audience. Since it is not the main topic of this paper, I will note but briefly two crucial facts that should be considered.46 Firstly, there is the emphasizing of Hamburg’s supremacy over the Nordic regions, which forms a constant feature in the work; secondly, the chronicle is addressed to Liemar (praef. and epil.), archbishop since 1072. Brought together with the time of writing, 1072/75–81, one can, without exaggeration, speak of a situation in 40 41

Adam of Bremen, scholion 14; IV, 13. Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis, II, 21: “si Boemiam et eos, qui trans Oddaram sunt, Polanos, quia nec habitu nec lingua descrepant, in partem adieceris Sclavaniae”. 42 Cf. already Isidor of Sevilla. 43 Adam of Bremen, scholion 24. 44 Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis, II, 56. 45 Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis, III, 15. 46 To the following cf. Volker Scior, “Adam of Bremen,” in Handbook of Medieval Nordic Literature in Latin, eds. Stephan Borgehammar, Karsten Friis-Jensen, and Lars Boje Mortensen (Turnhout: forthcoming) (Online-Version https://wikihost.uib.no/medieval/ index.php/Adam_Bremensis).

POLAND IN EARLY AND HIGH MEDIEVAL GERMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

193

which it was almost necessary for propagating the archbishopric’s rights and supremacy, and to emphasize its successes in the Nordic mission. The work reflects an actual historical-political crisis of the episcopal see with the need to defend its own claims against persons and institutions disputing them. The Nordic kings had tried to gain independence from the archbishopric – and thereby from the German kings – striving for their own church organization: Svend Estrithson of Denmark, Harald Hardrade of Norway, and Emund of Sweden. Adam’s negative views on everyone opposing the rights of his see – be it kings, missionaries, or bishops sent out or consecrated by others than by Hamburg’s own archbishops – become a delicate issue when focusing on the pontificate of Liemar, since Pope Gregory VII then supported the efforts for independence of the Nordic reigns. Liemar was siding with Henry IV in the investiture controversy. Liemar also attacked the papal policy towards the episcopacy. In 1074/5, when he wrote his chronicle, Adam called Gregory a periculosus homo, and was excommunicated in 1075. In two letters from 1075, Gregory tried to pull the Danish king onto his side in the conflict against Henry IV, and in a letter from 1080 to the Swedish king, the pope legalized the influential activities of bishops not sent out by Hamburg. From Adam’s point of view, the archbishopric threatened to lose the legatio gentium and at the same time its honor. Archbishop Liemar, who had only recently been appointed and without approval of Bremen’s cathedral chapter, was to be informed and prepared for the diocese’s ambitious and disputed tasks. Adam proverbially sketched out what had been achieved in the past and what was reachable in the future, with regard to range of the missionary activity. The work defends the existential rights and interests of a diocese already in decline. The foundation of the first Danish episcopal see in Lund in 1104 made real the loss of Hamburg’s legation and influence; at that point its supremacy was history. It is very possible that these developments were already foreseen in 1075. All these aspects are important when we try to figure out Adam’s ideas about the missionaries or priests dispatched or ordained by Polish bishops. Without regarding these briefly sketched aspects, the objections raised about of Polish bishops could be interpreted as an anti-Polish attitude. But they are not. They are the effect of Adam’s own identification with his archbishop. What is called the Chronica Slavorum of Helmold of Bosau, which was written sometime in the years 1186/1172, mainly focuses on the Slavs who lived close to the river Elbe.47 Still, in some cases Helmold mentions the Poles. To him, 47

Helmold of Bosau, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler, MGH SSrG 32 (Hannover, 1937), 1–218; Helmold of Bosau, Chronica Slavorum, ed. Heinz Stoob, FSGA 19 (Darmstadt, 1990). On the author and his identifications cf. Scior, Das Eigene und das Fremde.

194

Scior

they belong to the Slavania like the Russians, Prussians, Bohemi, Mahari, and Sorbs.48 Of course, Helmold is passing on an older conception of a heathen and the barbaric North – as for other authors, the Slavs belong to the North, the aquilo, a cold region held by heathen enemies and quite barbaric in relation to the writers’ own circumstances.49 The geographical aspects go hand in hand with religious values, which are also expressed for the readers of the time.50 Helmold often calls the Slavs very cruel, crudelissimi, and the Poles so as well.51 Whereas Helmold often describes other Slavs, he gives hardly any further information about the Poles. Poland was too far away from his interests. All in all, it can be summed up quite briefly that Frankish-German historiographers in the Early and High Middle Ages clearly had an idea of their Eastern neighbor, but ‘Poland’ and ‘the Poles’ did not play an important role for them. It is especially Thietmar of Merseburg, who wrote his chronicle in the East of the German kingdom and who mentions the Poles. Personally involved, due to the bonds of his father and family, he focused on ‘the Poles’. Still, in reality he had an eye only on the nobility, the dukes, their weddings or their military actions. What came into the minds of Western authors were at last two aspects. At first, there was the political state. Depending on how the Polish nobility acted in alliances with or against the German King and Roman Emperor, they were either favored by the historiographers or not. Secondly, there was the religion of the Slavs. Before their Christianization, it was above all the heathen polytheistic religion that characterized the Slavs; afterwards it was the Christian creed, and again it was whether or not they were Christian which determined how they were judged. ‘The Poles’ thus were seen as a political and religious community; the attribution of qualities depended on the knowledge, interest, and values of the Western historiographers. In the end, after reading the references to ‘Poland’ and ‘the Poles’ in early and high medieval historiography, it is hard to believe that any of the authors were interested in their Eastern neighbors in today’s sense. 48 49 50 51

Helmold of Bosau, Chronica Slavorum, 1. Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden,157–168. Fraesdorff, Der barbarische Norden, 319–333. Helmold of Bosau, Chronica Slavorum, 1.

chapter 10

Poland and the Polish People in Late Medieval German Historiography Norbert Kersken The historiography in the late medieval Roman-German Empire, (the time period from the end of the Staufers and what is called the Great Interregnum up to the middle of the 15th century), exhibits a number of characteristics that deserve consideration in a comprehensive discussion of this topic. While previously there had been an older tradition going back to the Carolingian times of chronicles being written in close association with the royal court, in the Late Middle Ages there was neither a practice of historiography closely associated with the court, nor were there other specific places or social centers that had become centers of a historiographical tradition. The historiography in the second half of the Middle Ages as cultivated at various locations and regional centers is remarkably abundant and diverse. Yet, this diversity, despite numerous individual studies about it in more recent times,1 even 150 years after Ottokar Lorenz’s2 synthesis, has in reality received comparatively little consideration.3 In contrast to the time period from the 10th through the early 13th centuries, there has hitherto been little attention devoted to the history of how the Empire perceived4 its eastern neighbors, especially Poland, during the Late Middle Ages.5 In the following survey of late medieval historiography in the Empire as it relates to comments about Poland and its inhabitants, the 1 The turn in the 1980s toward the researching of late medieval historiography is marked by the volume of articles entitled Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbewußtsein im späten Mittelalter, ed. Hans Patze, Vorträge und Forschungen 31 (Sigmaringen, 1987). 2 Ottokar Lorenz, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter seit der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts, 3., revised edition (Berlin, 1886/1887, repr. Graz, 1966). 3 The most important synthetic study in recent years is surely Rolf Sprandel, “Geschichtsschreiber in Deutschland 1347–1517,” in Mentalitäten im Mittelalter. Methodische und inhaltliche Probleme, ed. František Graus, Vorträge und Forschungen 35 (Sigmaringen, 1987), 289–316. 4 As to this concept, see: Hans-Werner Goetz, Vorstellungsgeschichte. Gesammelte Schriften zu Wahrnehmungen, Deutungen und Vorstellungen im Mittelalter, eds. Anna Aurast, Simon Elling, Bele Freudenberg, Anja Lutz, and Steffen Patzold (Bochum, 2007). 5 Consequently the studies remain important from Andrzej Feliks Grabski, Polska w opiniach obcych X–XIII w. [Poland in the opinion of foreigners X–XIII centuries], Warszawa, 1964;

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_011

196

Kersken

first step will be to present the representative texts in a structured way. Then I will inquire into their core descriptive themes. To conclude, I will address the patterns in the perceptions as revealed in the chronicles. The period of history under discussion runs from the last quarter of the 13th century to the close of the 15th century. 1

Chroniclers and Texts

To start with, it is important to underscore that there were no texts in late medieval German historiography that were specifically oriented towards depicting the relationships of the Empire with its eastern neighbors. In fact, this distinguishes the historiography of the 14th–15th centuries from that of the 11th century, when Saxon chronicles actually did pay special attention to their Slavic neighbors and also the emerging rule of the Piasts (one thinks say of Thietmar of Merseburg, Adam of Bremen, or Helmold of Bosau, or the annals from Quedlinburg, Magdeburg or Niederaltaich).6 The reason for this lies in the fact that the importance of the political relationships of the Empire to its eastern neighbors (especially to Poland) had diminished significantly since the later period of the Staufers. In view of this progressive breakdown in an awareness of the history of relations from the viewpoint of the main political power, namely the kingdom, two alternative viewpoints for perceptions of the eastern neighbors came to guide the historiography: one perspective turned its attention to the regional neighborhood and another took a universal history point of view The local perspective can be found in the German regional historiography of the late medieval period. This historiographic interest in political developments among the eastern neighbors (and localized in Saxony in the 10th and 11th centuries) also manifested itself in the late 13th and the 14th centuries in the southeast of the Empire, primarily in Austria. The most important of these idem, Polska w opiniach Europy zachodniej XIV–XV w. [Poland in the opinion of Western Europe 14th–15th century], Warszawa, 1968. 6 To this, Erich Donnert, “Studien zur Slawenkunde des deutschen Frühmittelalters,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena GSR 12 (1963) 189–224; Stanisław Rosik, “Die sächsischen Chronisten Widukind von Corvey und Thietmar von Merseburg über Anfänge Polens und Schlesiens,” in Niedersachsen – Niederschlesien. Der Weg beider in die Geschichte, eds. Wojciech Mrozowicz and Leszek Zygner (Göttingen, 2005), 19–35; Knut Görich, “Die deutsch-polnischen Beziehungen im 10. Jahrhundert aus der Sicht sächsischer Quellen,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 43 (2009) 315–325; Andrzej Pleszczyński, Przekazy niemieckie o Polsce.

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

197

texts is offered through the eyes of the detailed Steierische Reimchronik by Ottokar of Styria (=Otacher ouz der Geul), who takes up in detail the topic of the Polish connections during the period of the second half of the 13th century, namely the time of Ottokar II Přemysl and the last Přemyslids. For texts with a universal history perspective, one can name those which have a place in the tradition of the great universal history chronicles. Texts such as these originated in various regions of the Empire, especially in the southwest, in northern Germany, in the southeast, and in Bavaria, Austria, and Bohemia as well. The southwest region of the Empire (the cities on the middle and upper Rhine) show a long historiographical tradition of observing and commen­ ting on imperial history. In earlier periods these perspectives were associated with the great monasteries (St. Gallen, Reichenau); however, in the 14th century what emerged was an urban perspective, from Lindau, Strasbourg,7 and Mainz. In the post-Staufen period, primarily in the second half of the 14th century, several lengthy works were written which presented the imperial history and drew (in part) on the universal chronicles of the late 13th century. This view now also included giving attention to various developments in eastern Europe. Of these chroniclers the first one to mention is the work of the Franciscan, Johannes of Winterthur, which he composed in the 1340s in Lindau on Lake Constance, and which covered the time period from 1198 until 1348.8 It contains several reports about Polish history for the years 1326 to 1345 which deal with more than just facets in the history of German-Polish relations. In Straßburg, the chronicle of the academically trained jurist Matthias of Neuenburg in the middle of the 14th century followed the papal-imperial chronicle of Martin of Troppau, in which the relations with Poland had to do primarily with the genealogy of the Piasts.9 Similarly the cleric Reinbold Slecht (at the beginning of the 15th century) resumed the account of the Swabian Flores temporum for the period 1366–1422; he took notice of the confrontation between the Teutonic Order and Poland.10 Dietrich of Nieheim (Niem), a jurist at the papal curia (who was active in the conciliar movement at the beginning of the 15th century), also touched upon Polish matters in his history of the 7 Norbert Warken, Mittelalterliche Geschichtsschreibung in Strassburg. Studien zu ihrer Funktion und Rezeption bis zur frühen Neuzeit (Saarbrücken, 1995). 8  Die Chronik Johanns von Winterthur, ed. Friedrich Baethgen, MGH SS rer. Germ. N.S. 3 (Berlin 1924). 9  Die Chronik des Mathias von Neuenburg, ed. Adolf Hofmeister, MGH SS rer. Germ. N.S. 4 (Berlin, 1924/40). 10 Richard Fester, “Die Fortsetzung der Flores Temporum von Reinbold Slecht,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 48 (1894), 87–143.

198

Kersken

Great Schism and in his history of the Roman emperors.11 In Mainz, a general chronicle appeared at the beginning of the 15th century (handed down bearing the name of Johannes Kungstein) and it contains some reports about Poland for the years 1352 to 1410.12 Of great value as contemporaneous reports are the logs of the Mainz businessman Eberhard Windeck, who for ten years (from 1415 to 1424) lingered in the orbit of Sigismund of Luxembourg and for the time period from 1412 to 1438 reports on a series of events that were related to Poland (with the relations to the Teutonic Order and the Hussite wars being in the foreground). He also inserts a series of documents in his account.13 One sees this characteristic as well in the Speier chronicle, which provides several reports covering Polish connections for the period of the 1450/1460s.14 The northern reaches of the Empire, beginning in the 11th century, relayed important contributions to what was known about the Slavic neighbors, and these included references to Poland and the Poles. Adam of Bremen began things, followed later by Helmold of Bosau and (in the middle of the 13th century) by Albert of Stade. The late medieval historiography that built upon this had a clear primary emphasis in view of the fact that it originated in Lübeck; it underscored the city’s political and cultural importance in the context of the Hanseatic League.15 The chroniclers came without exception from the milieu of the mendicant orders. At the beginning of the 14th century a conventual Franciscan from Lübeck continued the Annals of Stade up to 1324, which of course provided reports about Poland only up to the coronation of Władysław

11 Theoderici de Nyem de scismate libri tres, ed. Georg Erler (Lipsiae, 1890); idem, “Historie de gestis Romanorum imperatorum,” in Historisch-politische Schriften des Dietrich von Nieheim, eds. Katharina Colberg and Joachim Leuschner, Vol. 2, MGH Staatsschriften 5, 2 (Stuttgart, 1980), 3–142. 12 Chronicon Moguntinum, ed. Carl Hegel, MGH SSrG. 20 (Hannoverae, 1885). 13 Eberhart Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigismunds, ed. Wilhelm Altmann (Berlin, 1893); overview of the inserted documents, ibid., 523–526; to this lately Joachim Schneider, Eberhard Windeck and his “Buch von Kaiser Sigmund” Studien zu Entstehung, Funktion und Verbreitung einer Königschronik im 15. Jahrhundert, Geschichtliche Landeskunde 73 (Stuttgart, 2018). 14 Speierische Chronik, ed. Franz Jospeh Mone, Quellensammlung der badischen Landesgeschichte 1, (Karlsruhe, 1848), 371–520. 15 To this: Johannes Bernhard Menke, “Geschichtsschreibung und Politik in den deutschen Städten des Spätmittelalters,” Jahrbuch des Kölnischen Geschichtsvereins 34/35 (1960), 85–194, here: 85–126; Klaus Wriedt, “Geschichtsschreibung in den wendischen Hansestädten,” in Geschichtsschreibung 401–426; Barbara Hoen, Deutsches Eigenbewußtsein in Lübeck. Zu Fragen spätmittelalterlicher Nationsbildung, Historische Forschungen 19 (Sigmaringen, 1994).

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

199

Łokietek.16 Detmar, a lector at the Lübeck monastery of St. Katherine’s, was engaged by the Lübeck council during the years 1368–1395 to write a chronicle in middle low German and in it he also frequently reports about Polish affairs.17 And to conclude this list, in the second decade of the 15th century a Lübeck Dominican, Hermann Korner, composed a universal chronicle (initially in Latin) which, in the contemporaneous part, frequently reports news related to Poland,18 and what was called the Rufus Chronicle from around 1430 did this as well.19 In the old Saxon part of the Empire, in Minden in eastern Westphalia, around 1355–1370 a Dominican, Heinrich of Herford, incorporated into his universal chronicle a few reports related to Poland from a Brandenburg point of view.20 The second place in the Saxon north of the Empire where reports about Poland came together was Magdeburg. The Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburgensium21 and the Magdeburg Schöppenchronik (Chronicle of the Magdeburg Lay Judges)22 offer for the first half of the 15th century a series of entries relevant to this topic, primarily related to the conflicts of the Teutonic Order with Poland. In the annals of the Cistercian monastery of Riddagshausen near Braunschweig23 there are only two small notes and also the important Erfurt chronicles pay little attention to Poland at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 15th century.24 Most of the reports dealing with Poland are found in entries by chroniclers in the region of Bavaria-Austria-Bohemia. For the most part this can be explained 16 Annales Lubicenses, ed. Johann Martin Lappenberg, MGH SS 16 (Hannoverae, 1859), 411–429. 17 Detmar Chronik, ed. Karl Koppmann, Die Chroniken der niedersächsischen Städte. Lübeck, vols. 1–2, Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte 19, 26 (Leipzig, 1884, 1899). 18 Die Chronica novella des Hermann Korner, ed. Jakob Schwalm (Göttingen, 1895). 19 Rufus-Chronik, ed. Karl Koppmann, Die Chroniken der niedersächsischen Städte. Lübeck; ibid., vol. 3, Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte 28 (Leipzig, 1902), 197–276. 20 Henricus de Hervordia, Liber de rebus memorabilioribus sive chronicon, ed. August Potthast (Gottingae, 1859); the universal chronicle by Gobelin Person in Paderborn has only one relevant entry, for 1410: Cosmidromius Gobelini Person, ed. Max Jansen, Veröffentlichungen der Provinz Westfalen 7 (Münster, 1900), 1–227. 21 Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburgensium, ed. Wilhelm Schum, MGH SS 14 (Hannoverae, 1883), 361–484. 22 Die Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, ed. Karl Janicke, Die Chroniken der niedersächsischen Städte. Magdeburg Vol. 1, Chroniken der deutschen Städte 7 (Leipzig, 1869, repr. 1962). 23 Annales Riddagshusani, ed. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium 2, (Hanoverae, 1710), 68–84. 24 “Cronica s. Petri Erfordensis moderna,” in Monumenta Erphesfurtensia saec. XII, XIII, XIV, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SSrG. 42 (Hannover-Leipzig, 1899), 117–398; Chronicon Theodorici Engelhusii continens res Ecclesiae et Reipublicae ab o.c. usque ad a. 1421, ed. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium 2, 978–1143.

200

Kersken

by the fact that Poland was a neighboring region to Bohemia and Hungary, and consequently there were more extensive interactions with Poland that arose through this proximity. This is especially clear in Ottokar’s Styrian rhymed chronicle from the first decade of the 14th century.25 Occasionally in Austrian annals some attention is given to events in Poland out of an interest in the history of foreign relation, e.g., in the annals from Salzburg, Klosterneuburg, and Melk;26 this also applies to the short annalistic notes from the monastery Fürstenfeld (near Munich) and to the Lower Bavarian biography of Emperor Louis IV.27 In his regional history Liber certarum historiarum (with its Habsburg orientation) Johann of Viktring in the 1340s pays some attention to Polish points of view as well;28 that was the case primarily with regard to the various marriages between the Piast dukes and Bavarian and Austrian dukes. From this same time period comes the papal-imperial chronicle by Heinrich Taube of Selbach in Eichstätt written as a continuation of Flores temporum.29 Augsburg chronicles, primarily for the middle of the 15th century, provide some information that is related to Poland.30 At the end of the 15th century it was then the large works of Bavarian regional historiography (the works of Ulrich

25 Ottokars österreichische Reimchronik, ed. Joseph Seemüller, MGH Dt. Chroniken 5, 1–2 (Hannover, 1890–1893, repr. Zürich-Dublin, 1974). 26 Annales sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 9 (Hannoverae, 1851) 757–810; Annales Claustroneoburgenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, ibid., 607–613 (I), 614–624 (II), 628–637 (III), 742–746 (IV), 735–742 (V), 755–757 (VII); Annales Mellicenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, ibid., 480–535. 27 Notae Fuerstenfeldenses de ducibus Bavariae a. 1211–1304, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH SS 24 (Hannoverae, 1879) 74–75. – Chronica Ludovici imperatoris quarti, ed. Georg Leidinger, MGH SS rer Germ. 19 (Hannover/Leipzig, 1918) 105–138. 28 Iohannis abbas Victoriensis Liber certarum historiarum, ed. Fedor Schneider, MGH SS rer. Germ. 36 (Hannoverae/Lipsiae, 1909/ 1910). 29 Die Chronik Heinrich Taubes von Selbach mit den von ihm verfaßten Biographien Eichstätter Bischöfe, ed. Harry Bresslau, MGH SS rer. Germ. N.S. 1 (Berlin, 1922). 30 “Chronik der Stadt Augsburg,” in Die Chroniken der schwäbischen Städte 1, ed. Ferdinand Frensdorff, Chroniken der deutschen Städte 4 (Leipzig, 1865) 3–198; Chronik der Stadt Augsburg von der Gründung bis zum Jahre 1469, ibid., 267–333; Burkhard Zink, Chronik, Die Chroniken der schwäbischen Städte. Vol. 2, eds. Ferdinand Frensdorff and Mathias Lexer, Chroniken der deutschen Städte 5 (Leipzig, 1866); Hector Mülich, Chronik, eds. Friedrich Roth and Mathias Lexer, Die Chroniken der schwäbischen Städte 3, Chroniken der deutschen Städte 22 (Leipzig, 1892); Anonyme Chronik von 991–1483, Die Chroniken der Stadt Augsburg 6. Chroniken der deutschen Städte 22, 445–529.

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

201

Füetrer in Munich31 and of Hans Ebran of Wildenberg32 and Veit Arnpeck33 in Landshut) which –although not systematically and only occasionally – take some account of events in Poland. Likewise, in the anonymously passed down (so-called) ‘Austrian Chronicle of the 95 Rulers’ from 139034 and in the Austrian chronicle by Jakob Unrest (which deals with the time of Emperor Frederick III) multiple references to Poland are made.35 During this time period once again the tradition of papal-imperial chronicles was taken up, and in the sections on contemporaneous events, references to Poland are time and again made and laid out. Andreas of Regensburg, who wrote in the 1420s while a canon in Regensburg,36 and Thomas Ebendorfer, who was active in Vienna around 1450, should be mentioned here.37 Both men wrote presentations of regional histories as well as outlines of universal histories. In the world chronicle written in the first decade of the 16th century by Johann Staindel of Passau, the sections on contemporaneous events contain only a few entries that relate to Poland.38 Of special importance are the reports with regard to Poland in the large contemporaneous Bohemian chronicles of the 14th century, specifically the Chronicon

31 Ulrich Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, ed. Reinhold Spiller, Quellen und Erörterungen zur Bayerischen und Deutschen Geschichte NF II, 2 (München, 1909). 32 Des Ritters Hans Ebran von Wildenberg Chronik von den Fürsten aus Bayern, ed. Friedrich Roth, Quellen und Erörterungen zur Bayerischen und Deutschen Geschichte NF 1 (München, 1905). 33 Veit Arnpeck, “Chronica Baioariorum,” in idem, Sämtliche Chroniken, ed. Georg Leidinger, Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte NF 3 (München, 1915) 1–443; idem, “Bayerische Chronik,” ibid., 447–705; idem, “Chronicon Austriacum,” likewise, 709–845. 34 Österreichische Chronik von den 95 Herrschaften, ed. Josef Seemüller, MGH Dt. Chr. 6 (Hannover, 1906/09). 35 Jakob Unrest, Österreichische Chronik, ed. Karl Großmann, MGH SSrG. N.S. 11 (Weimar, 1957). 36 Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica summorum pontificum et imperatorum Romanorum,” in idem, Sämtliche Werke, ed. Georg Leidinger, Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte N.F. 1 (München, 1903), 1–158, 704–707, 710 et seq.; idem, “Diarium sexennale,” ibid., 301–342; to this Krzysztof Ożóg, “‘Bawarski Liwiusz’. Andrzej z Ratyzbony i jego zainteresowania Polską w pierwszej polowie XV wieku,” [‘Bavarian Livius’. Andreas of Regensburg and his interest in Poland in the first half of the 15th century] in Świat średniowiecza. Studia ofiarowane Profesorowi Henrykowi Samsonowiczowi, eds. Agnieszka Bartoszewicz, Grzegorz Myśliwski, Jerzy Pysiak, and Paweł Żmudzki, (Warszawa, 2010), 745–760. 37 Thomas Ebendorfer, Chronica regum Romanorum, ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH SSrG. N.S. 18 (Hannover, 2003). 38 Johannes Staindel, Chronicon generale, ed. Andreas Felix von Oefele. Rerum Boicarum Scriptores 1, (Augustae Vindelicorum, 1763), 417–542.

202

Kersken

Aulae Regiae by Peter of Zittau,39 as well as in the chronicles that build upon it: one by Francis of Prague from the middle of the 14th century,40 another by Beneš Krabice of Weitmühl from the years 1372–1374,41 and one that came a bit later by Přibík Pulkava42 as well as in the autobiography of Charles IV from 1346–1350.43 These texts provide detailed information for the first half of the 14th century about developments in Poland since they were written against the background of the close relationships between the Bohemian and the Polish kingdoms and the problem of the political ties of the Silesian principalities. The information, however, is essentially limited to Polish-Bohemian relations. In Silesia itself there are reports that relate to Poland44 in a few annals from Breslau,45 Heinrichau,46 and Ratibor.47 Reports are more abundant in the historical work from the Augustinian monastery in Sagan, the Catalogus abbatum Saganensium, composed at the end of the 14th century by Abbot Ludolf and continued in the first years of the 16th century by Prior Peter Weynknecht,48 as well as the contemporaneous accounts from the Breslau cathedral’s canon Sigismund Rosicz49 and from the Glogau monastery’s vicar, Caspar Borgeni, for the years 1472–1493.50 39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50

Petra Žitavského Kronika, 3–337. Chronicon Francisci Pragensis, ed. Jana Zachová, FRB S.N. 1 (Praga, 1997). Benessius de Weitmil, “Chronicon,” ed. Josef Emler, FRB 4 (Praha, 1884), 457–548. Cronica Boemorum, ed. Josef Emler, FRB 5 (Praha, 1893), 3–207. Karoli IV imperatoris Romanorum Vita ab eo ipso conscripta = Autobiography of emperor Charles IV, eds. Balázs Nagy and Frank Schaer, Central European Medieval Texts (Budapest, 2001). What are not considered are the chronicles from Leubus and Brieg, what is called Chronicon Polono-Silesiacum from the 1280s and the Chronica principum Poloniae from the 1380s; here to Wojciech Mrozowicz, “Die Polnische Chronik (Polnisch-Schlesische Chronik) und die Chronik der Fürsten Polens (Chronica principum Poloniae) als Mittel zur dynastischen Identitätsstiftung der schlesischen Piasten,” in: Legitimation von Fürstendynastien in Polen und dem Reich. Identitätsbildung im Spiegel schriftlicher Quellen (12.–15. Jahrhundert), eds. Grischa Vercamer and Ewa Wólkiewicz, Deutsches Historisches Institut Warschau. Quellen und Studien 31 (Wiesbaden, 2016), 249–262. Annales Wratislavienses maiores sowie Annales civitatis Wratislaviensis, ed. Wilhelm Arndt, MGH SS 19 (Hannoverae, 1866) 531–533, 527–531. Annales Cisterciensium Henricoviensium, ed. Wilhelm Arndt, MGH SS 19 (Hannoverae, 1866) 544–547. “Chronicon Ratiboriense,” ed. Augustin Weltzel, Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Alterthum Schlesiens 4/1 (1862) 114–126. Catalogus abbatum Saganensium, ed. Gustav Adolph Stenzel, Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 1 (Breslau, 1835), 173–528. Sigismund Rosicz, Gesta diversa transactis temporibus facta in Silesia et alibi, ed. Franz Wachter, Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum 12 (Breslau, 1883), 37–86. Annales Glogovienses bis zum J. 1493 nebst urkundlichen Beilagen, ed. Hermann Markgraf. SRS 10 (Breslau, 1877); about the author: Paul Knötel, “Der Verfasser der ‘annales

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

2

203

Politics and Events

Now the intention is to examine all the chronicle texts mentioned here with regard to their interests in and comments on Poland and Polish relations, however this will be limited to those comments about the events from the mid-13th century onward. The texts can also serve a supplemental role in evaluating all information about the Polish history of the period; one can gain through them important insights into an overall understanding of Poland and its history. As to the method on how best to proceed, that is significantly problematic; one surely may not assume that the whole of the late medieval chronicles from the Empire have at their core a shared mindset, intention or conception of history. For making well-founded assertions, it would be better to evaluate each chronicle individually regarding its comments about Poland, but that is not possible in this context. Instead the effort will be to outline at a minimum the tendencies found in the chronicles presented here, and through this reveal the perceptions and estimations of Poland conveyed in them. The chroniclers from the late 13th to the end of the 15th centuries basically attend to three domains: first of all, actual events in Polish history; secondly, information about Polish foreign relations; thirdly, references to familial and marital relations. I Ranking first are the topics and reports that can be designated as genuinely “Polish”. These address essentially three moments from the history of the constitutional development of Poland during the late medieval period. The first of these is the coronation of Władysław Łokieteks as king of Poland in January 1320. This is one of the most reported events overall. The Chronicon Aulae Regiae from Prague and the Annales Lubicenses offer reports and are both temporally and geographically proximate to the event. Later on, in Lübeck Detmar also mentions this event, as well as chroniclers at a greater distance, for example, Johann of Viktring in Carinthia and Johannes of Winterthur at Lake Constance. All of the chroniclers underscore the role of the pope, who had given his approval to the coronation.51 Several times it is highlighted that Glogovienses’,” in: Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte und Altertum Schlesiens 22 (1888) 94–108; annotated Polish translation: Kaspar Borgeni, Rocznik głogowski do roku 1493 (Annales Glogovienses bis z.J. 1493), ed. Wojciech Mrozowicz (Głogów, 2013). 51 “Hoc anno Lokotko, dux Sandomerie, a sede apostolica obtinuit coronam regalem Polonie, …” (Chron. Aulae Regiae, II, 9: 256); “Qui [Johannes XXII.] post modicum ducem Kracoviae, cognomento Locket, imposita corona capiti suo, regem fecit ordinari Kracoviae et Poloniae …” (Ann. Lubic., 425); “Hic eciam papa regnum Polonie relevavit,

204

Kersken

the papal approval was gained through a pledge of a monetary remittance and the regular payment of Peter’s Pence: dicto papae infinitam dedit pecuniam, nec non omnes homines sui regni fecit aeternaliter censuales.52 Only the Ratibor annals mention Łokietek’s death in the middle of the 15th century.53 The second moment mentioned is the royal succession after the death of Casimir III. Understandably, this situation received remarkably little attention, with only two comments at the beginning of the 15th century, firstly in the Breslau annals54 and secondly by Johannes Kungstein in Mainz. According to the latter, a magna dissension arose between the emperor and the king of Hungary about the vacancy on the throne of Poland.55 It reports that Skirgaila assumed the kingship,56 but for one thing it leaves unmentioned the rule of Louis of Hungary (1370–1382) and for another it incorrectly construes Skirgailas’ intermediary role in 1385. Significantly more attention is given, by contrast, to the happenings in the years 1385–86, namely, the crowning of Hedwig of Anjou and the Polish-Lithuanian personal union.57 A brief accurate presentation is provided by Hermann Korner in Lübeck. He knows about the two daughters of Louis of

52

53 54

55 56 57

quod olim defecit, missa corona et titulo regalis nominis Lottoni duci Kracovie, …” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 110); “Quidam aiunt papam hec demandasse regi Gragogie et, quia sibi in hoc paruit, regem eum fecit, qui ante dux unus Polonie fuit.” – Johannes von Winterthur, Chronica, ed. Friedrich Baetgen, MGH SS rer. Germ. N.S., Berlin, 1924, 102; “He let hertoghen Lokede van Cracowe wyen to koninghe der Polene.” (Detmar-Chronik, cap. 498: 428). Ann. Lubic., 425; this context is also emphasized by Peter of Zittau: “Incepitque statim denarium sancti Petri de uno quoque capite humano sedi apostolice decimaliter solvere, qui antea longo tempore denegatus fuerat, …” (Chron. Aulae Regiae, II, 9: 256); further on Johann of Viktring: “… auctoritate et censu beati Petri illud roborans confirmavit.” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, V, 3: II, 110) and Detmar of Lübeck: “Des makede he sin rike eweliken tinsachtich, also dat in deme rike jewelk minsche mot deme stole to Rome gheven alle jar enen penning, de is gheheten sunte Peters penning.” Detmar-Chronik, cap. 428, 498. Chronicon Ratiboriense, 115. “Anno Domini 1370. septem diebus ante festum sancti Martini Casymirus rex Polonie ultimus Polonus obiit sine herede. Et Lodowicus rex Ungarie factus est rex Polonie pro eo, cuius pater fuit Gallicus de dono regis Francorum provisus per papam, et sic filius eius habuit duo regna.” (Ann. civitatis Wratislav., 530). “Eo tempore magna terrarum dissensio vertebatur inter imperatorem et regem Ungarie pro regno Polonie, quod propter obitum regis Cracoviensis defuncti nuper vacare videbatur.” (Chron. Mogunt., 28). Ibid.: “Hoc regnum postea Schirial scismaticus rex Liteanorum est adeptus.” To the historiographic perception of these events, Andrzej Feliks Grabski, “Jadwiga – Wilhelm – Jagiełło w opiniach europejskich,” [Jadwiga-Wilhem-Jagiełło in European opinions] Nasza przeszłość 23 (1966) 117–166, esp. 133–152.

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

205

Hungary, about the thwarted marital union of William of Austria with Hedwig propter avariciam Polonorum, and her subsequent marriage to the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiełło as well as his and his retinue’s baptism at Cracow.58 The Heinrichau annals reveal an accent that comes from a Lithuanian view of matters: it mentions the acceptance of Christianity, the baptismal name of the Lithuanian “king”; his marriage to the daughter of the Hungarian king, and the commencement of his reign (optinuit regnum eiusdem provincie).59 These goings-on are described in detail in Bavarian chronicles, by Andreas of Regensburg, Thomas Ebendorfer, and Hans Ebran of Wildenberg. Thomas Ebendorfer reports on the two daughters of Louis of Hungary and the switching around of the original wedding arrangements for Maria and Hedwig; Thomas’ interest lay with the marriage of Maria to Sigismund.60 But in contrast, Hans Ebran of Wildenberg, with a joy in storytelling, circulated ein ware und schöne histori about the christianization of Lithuania, writing that after the death of the konig von Bolon (meaning Louis of Hungary), the Polish nobility could not come to agreement over a successor, so they elected Meschbot, the oldest of three princely brothers from Lithuania, and he was given the baptismal name “Ladislaus”.61 There are several details in this story that deserve highlighting: knowledge about several pretenders to the throne (among them the duke of Masovia, Siemowit IV), the mediating role taken on by the governor of Cracow, and providing the names of the three Lithuanian grand dukes: ‘Meschbot’, (which is Jogaila), Witold and ‘Schwiderbal’, (which is Švitrigaila). Of note is the substitution of the name Meschbo or Meschbot for Jogaila, for which there is no other such instance. Possibly the author used as his starting point the name of the first known Polish ruler, Mieszko. Jogaila’s efforts toward christianizing Lithuania are recognized, but at the same time criticized for being superficial.62 The surprising fact that the person who was the instigator of all these developments, Hedwig of Anjou, is simply passed over in silence 58 “[Lodowicus] genuit duas filias, scilicet Mariam … et Hedewigem, quam desponsaverat pater eius Wilhelmo, filio Lippoldi ducis Austrie postea a Sweytzer interfecti, sed ipsam non obtinuit propter avariciam Polonorum, quia Polonia fuit Hadewigi a patre assignata, sed tradiderunt eam cum regno Vergel duci Lithuanorum, qui baptizatus est cum multis Lithuanis in castro Krakovienisi.” (Korner, Chron. novella, cap. 627: 76); idem, cap. 155, 312. 59 “Litwani et rex eorum ad fidem convertuntur Cristi, qui rex … sub fide conversionis duxit filiam regis Ungarie et ab episcopo Cracoviensi in Cracovia baptizatur; qui eciam optinuit regnum eiusdem provincie, qui fuit selator fidei et cleri multum, et vocatus est Vladislaus.” (Ann. Cisterciensium Henricov., 547). 60 Thomas Ebendorfer, Chronica, 565. 61 Ebran von Wildenberg, Chronik, 143. 62 Ebran von Wildenberg notes in the margin of his personal copy: “aber sein sun, kvng Kasmi, pavt stift, kloster- und pfarkiren. aber das gemain folch ist noch grob, vnd so ain

206

Kersken

by the chronicler can be explained as follows: the story is being told from a markedly Lithuanian perspective. Andreas of Regensburg incorporated all these events into his report of information which had been communicated to him in 1423 by Andrzej Łaskarz, bishop of Posen, whom he met when the latter paused in Regensburg on his way to Italy. He briefly describes the particulars regarding the successors of Casimir III and Louis of Hungary, and the marriage of Hedwig of Anjou with Jogaila was among them.63 The Austrian chroniclers present these events from the point of view of the Habsburg William the Courteous, Hedwig’s intended spouse. Particularly detailed is the report in the Salzburg annals for the year 138664 and in the Austrian chronicle, whose author ascribes the dissolution of Hedwig’s marriage to William to the mother of Hedwig and spouse of Louis of Anjou, Elisabeth of Bosnia.65 The sequence of events are briefly mentioned in the Melk annals66 and retrospectively under the year 1403 in the Klosterneuburg annals.67 Both the Klosterneuburg and

63

64

65

66 67

pavr gefragt birt: “bas gelavbst?” so ist sein antbort: ‘ich gelavb, bas der kvnig gelavbt’.” (ibid., 144). “Filias autem suas idem Ludwicus rex Polonie et Ungarie postea locavit Hedvigem tamquam heredem in Cracovia. Mariam autem in Ungaria. Hedvigis duxit maritum dictum prius Gegelo Litwanum genere, qui accepto baptismo vocatus et Wlatislaus, iam regem Polonorum in Cracovia Hedvige mortua cum prole sua.” (Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica”, 307f.); see also below, note 166. “Item filius ducis Austrie Leupoldi, Wilhelmus nomine, de Cracovia est expulsus, et regina Cracovie, filia regis Ungarie, cum qua dictus dux Wilhelmus matrimonium contraxerat, post ipsius expulsionem regi Lituanie, predicto matrimonio non obstante, matrimonialiter est sociata, ex dispensatione domini Urbani pape sexti. Qui rex occasione eiusdem matrimonii ad fidem katholicam conversus sacrum baptisma suscepit, et in Cracovia potenter regnavit.” (Ann. s. Rudberti Salisburg., ad a. 1386: 840). “Zu der zeit herczog Wilhalm, herczog Leupolts sun von Österreich, ward mit seiner prawt in das künigreich gen Krakaw gefüret, und do ward zwischen in die chanschaft volfüret, wan er bey ir offt ain nacht hat gelegen. Nu schündet der veint alles menschleichs hailes die alte küniginn von Ungeren, künig Ludweigs wittiben, und von rat wegen des grossen grafes sant si zu aim haiden in die Littaw und verhies im ir tochter, ob er si wolt nemen zu ainem weibe. Derselb | haiden cham gen Krakaw mit grosser macht und liez sich da tautfen, allain durch des ku̇ nigreichs willen, alz etleich wellent. Der nam die frawn über irs herczen willen wider got und daz rechte mit dem willen irr vaigen muter, an der got daz grozz unrecht, alz hernach geschriben stet, scheinperleich hat gerochen.” (Österreichische Chronik, V, 408: 204f. “Eodem anno filius eius [Leopoldus III.] Wilhelmus dux expulsus est a Krakovia, ubi tunc rex habebatur.” Annales Mellicenses, ed. Wilhem Wattenbach, MGH SS 9 (Hannover, 1851) 484–535, at 514. “Regina de Apulia venit ad Austriam, et duxit in maritum ducem Wilhelmum, qui quondam fuit rex Polonie: quia barones et potentiores, sicut debuit dormire cum regina in prima nocte, tunc maiores domini voluerunt ipsum iugulare, et regina ammonuit ipsum, et sic furtive evasit, et amplius non redibat; et domini de Polonia redderunt ipsam contra

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

207

Melk annals identify William explicitly as rex Polonie. Ludolf of Sagan also reports this series of events with special attention to the planned marriage of Hedwig and William,68 which Dietrich of Nieheim suggests had already been consummated and who portrays William as king.69 II The second thematic block deals with Polish foreign relations. These primarily are related to Silesian matters, for example, the account about the youngest son of Henry II the Pious, Władysław of Silesia, who in 1267 was named archbishop of Salzburg, which Otto of Steiermark (briefly), Johann of Viktring, and the Austrian chronicles report.70 As to the confrontations between Bolko II of Schweidnitz, potentissimus in regno Polonie, and Charles IV, this is reported by Hermann Korner for the year 1351.71 Polish relations throughout the struggles of Ottokar II Přemysl are reported by neighboring observers: Ottokar of Steiermark, Johann of Viktring and Thomas Ebendorfer.72 Polish-Brandenburg relations were initially addressed under the year 1285 in relation to the issue of the succession in Pomerelia73 and the assassination of Przemysł II in Rogasen (Rogoźno) in 1296.74 When writing about the double election in October 1314 of Friedrich the Fair and Louis of Bavaria as Roman-German king, a Bavarian chronicle speaks of the Brandenburg Prince-elector as representing Polonia cum Pranburga.75 The invasion of Brandenburg by Władysław Łokietek with

68 69

70 71 72 73 74 75

voluntatem eius cuidam pagano, quem coronaverunt in regem.” (Ann. Claustroneoburg., ad a. 1403: 736). Catalogus abbatum Sagan., 218. “Et illo temopore Vilhelmus filius Leopoldi ducis Austriae, maritus Haduigis filiae Ludouici regis Hungariae, cui Ludouicus rex Hungariae dedit in dotem Haduigae regnum Poloniae. Et cum Cracouiae resideret, quidam nobiles Poloni eundem iuuenem inuita dicta regina eius uxore inde fugarunt, et dominum Ladislaum modernum regem Poloniae tunc ducem Litphanorum ac idolatram seu paganum sub conditione quod se faceret baptisari eidem reginae matrimonii copularunt, qui factus Christianus cum regina diu in matrimonio stetit, …” (Theodoricus, De scismate, I, 58, 26). Ottokar, Reimchronik, cap. 71, V. 8660–8672, 8713–8836, 114f.; Iohannis Victoriensis Liber 100, 170; Österreichische Chronik III, 265, 121f. Korner, Chron. Novella, cap. 56 ad a. 1351, 59. Ottokar, Reimchronik, cap. 140, V. 152001–15228, 201; Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 231, 233f.; Thomas Ebendorfer, Cronica, 490f. Staindel, Chronicon, 512a. According Detmar-Chronik, cap. 393, 378: he was murdered by his own people – “By der tiid [1297] wart ghedodet de koning van Polonien to Rogozna van sinen eghenen ridderen.” “Nam Ungaria, Styria, Moravia et Suevia, Colonia, Alsatia cum Austria: hii astabant Fridrico. Sed omnibus hoc dico: Bohemia cum Saxonia, Polonia cum Pranburga, Michsnia

208

Kersken

the aid of Lithuanian auxiliary troops in early 1326 is given major attention in the contemporary chronicles. Initially in the north it is mentioned in the annals of the Kolbatz monastery,76 and then in the great contemporaneous Bohemian histories, the Chronicon Aulae Regiae77 and later the chronicle of Francis of Prague,78 the chronicles of Beneš Krabice of Weitmühl,79 and Pulkava,80 the annals from Heinrichau in Silesian,81 as well as the universal history cum Tuͤ ringia, Treveris cum Maguncia, Renus cum utraque Bawaria: hii astabant Ludwico preclarissimo regi magno.” (Chron. Ludovici quarti, ad a. 1314: 126). 76 “Eodem anno … pagani sabbato ante Oculi I: iro curante hoc Lokyst, rege Polonotum ueneruut usque Frankenvorde et innumerabiles homiries precipue juuenss fortes et mulieres et virgines abduxerunt in terram captiuitatis, cum quibus et nephanda et miserabilia commiserunt; sed et infantes et antiquiores et rebelles interfecerunt, quorum tamen circa L in quadam ecclesia cujusdam ville, prope Wrankenuorde per sequentibus eos ciuibus dicte ciuitatis incendio perierunt.” – Annales Colbazenses, ed. Rodgero Prümers. Pommersches Urkundenbuch 1/2 (Stettin, 1877), 465–496, here 487. 77 “Hoc anno ex permissione Johannis pape inter Cruciferos domus Deutonice in Prusia et saracenos dictos Lythoanos sunt amicabiles per triennium facte treuge, ita san, quod infra istud triennium se mutuo inpedire non debeant aliqualiter vel turbare, quod heu in magnum detrimentum Christianorum devenit et ecclesie. Nam inveteratus dierum Lokotko, rex Polonie, volens sedi apostolice et pape complacere, ut asseruit, contra marchionem Brandinburgensem iuvenculum, Lodowici de Bawaria regis Romanorum, filium innumerabiles Lythowanorum turbas pugnaturus sibi assumit, marchionatumque Brandenburgensem invadit ac iuxta civitatem Frankinfurd et in universo ipsius confinio plagam in christianos exercuit et tyrannidem nimis magnam. Per paganos enim Lythowanos Christianam sanguinem effundere sicientes et oportunitatem habentes ville et oppida comburuntur, monasteria quoque plurima monachorum, quam sanctimonialium confringuutur, Christi famuli et famule trucidantur et violantur, et vulgares homines velut pecudes innumerabiles ad paganorum patriam deducuntur. Tanta mala ibi per paganos tunc perpetrata sunt, quod sine gemitu cordis narrari non possunt.” (Chron. Aulae Regiae, II, 17: 278 et seq.). 78 “Eodem anno [1326] dux Crakovie dictus Loketko, magnas turbas Lytwanorum sibi associans marchionatum Bramburgensem invadit et iuxta civitatem Frankenwrd in confinio ipsius universe plagam in christianos exercuit et tyrannidem nimis magnam. Monasteria plurima destruuntur, oppida et ville cremantur et homines velud pecudes innumerabiles ad paganorum patriam deducuntur.” (Chron. Francisci Pragensis, II, 15: 115). 79 “Eodem anno dux Lokethko congregata Lytwanorum magna multitudine terram Brandeburgensem hostiliter devastavit, viros et mulieres captivos abduxit.” (Benessius, “Chronicon,” 480). 80 “Anno vero Domini MCCCXXVI Wladislaus alias Loketko, rex Cracovie, multos infideles Litwanos, Ruthenos paganos ad partes marchie Brandemburgensis destinavit et pluribus innuinem dampna fecit.” (Pulkava, Cronica Boemorum, cap. 100, 203). 81 “Litwanorum exercitus, de terra sua egressus, cum conductu regis Cracovie Vlodezlai, qui appellatus est Loketh, intraverunt dyocesim Lubuczensem, in qua magnam multitudinem hominum christianorum captivam duxerunt et ipsos miserabiliter tractaverunt; …” (Ann. Cisterciensium Henricov., 546).

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

209

chronicles of Johannes of Winterthur,82 Heinrich of Herford,83 Heinrich Taube of Selbach,84 and Detmar of Lübeck.85 Peter of Zittau, Johannes of Winterthur and Heinrich of Herford name Pope John XXII as the instigator of the military campaign. Johann of Winterthur links the military action with the earlier papal approval of the royal coronation of Władysław, while Heinrich of Herford explains the event as a reaction to the occupation of Pomerelia by the Teutonic Order in 1309.86 The agreements of Trentschin and Visegrád from 1335 (in which the Bohemian claims to the Polish crown were relinquished) are addressed only in Bohemian chronicles.87 Using this opportunity and given the failed marriage arrangements between Margarethe of Luxembourg and Casimir III in 1341, they

82

“Nam in quibusdam christianitatis, ut fertur, extremitatibus Teutonicis cruciferis diffuse dominantibus, paganorum truculentam rabiem eos contingencium cohercentibus et refrenantibus, ne per suas invasiones et incursiones pestiferas fidelium terris quantum gliscunt nocere possint, dominus papa in mandatis districtissime dedit, quatenus ipsos per terram suam liberum transitum habere sinerent, ut in vindictam et iniuriam imperatoris ad terram filii sui demoliendam vocatam Brandenburg aceessum habere possent. Qui iussioni papali contraire pertimescentes inviti cum eiulatu, ut ita dicam, amarissimo paganis transitum pro suo libitu indulserunt. Quidam aiunt papam hec demandasse regi Gragogie et, quia sibi in hoc paruit, regem eum fecit, qui ante dux unus Polonie fuit.” (Johann von Winterthur, Chronik, 102). 83 Henricus de Hervordia, Liber, cap. 94: 211. 84 “Rex Lichphonie cum multitudine paganorum marchionatum Brandenburgensem crudeliter depopulat. Hic marchionatus modico tempore ante absque naturali herede vacavit per obitum Waldemari marchionis ibidem supra nominatus.” (Heinrich Taube, Chronica, 39). 85 “In deme sulven jare [1326] Lockede, de koning van Krakowe, do he sine dochter hadde gheven deme koninghe van Ungheren unde sineme sone hadde gheven des koninghes dochter van Lettowen, do sammelde he ute den lande des heydeschen dedes also vele; de toghen in des marcgreven lant di Prinzslawe. De lantde vorhereden unde dreven dar uth vele ghuder lude, vrowen unde man. Do weren bi deme koninghe van Kracowe des paves boden. De beden de Dudeschen brodere, dat se in ereme lande de heydene scholden nicht hinderen. Also was dat lut. Over in deme weghe, dar de Lettowen toghen to lande, dar volghede na van Polene en helt vormeten.” (Detmar-Chronik, cap. 544: 454). 86 “Injuriam hanc antiquam rex Polonorum temporibus nostris corde revolvens, Letwinis paganis, consilio et placito pape Johannis, ut dicbatur, qui marchionem Lodwicum propter patrem suum Lodewicum imperatorem odivit, amicitia, fide, federibusque sociatur, sperans per eos de Marcomannos se posse vindicare.” – Henricus de Hervordia, Liber, cap. 94: 211. 87 Chron. Aulae Regiae III, 11: 331: “Qualiter Johannes, rex Boemie, alienavit regnum Polonie.” – Chron. Francisci Pragensis, III, (3) 8: 159f., quotation see note 141.

210

Kersken

address the abandoned (that is to say, unrealized) political union of Poland and Bohemia.88 Casimir III’s politics towards the east against Halych in the 1340s and 1350s receives significant attention in imperial chronicles of the late 14th century. The incursion of the Tartars into Lesser Poland in the wake of the battles over the successor to the prince of Halych, Bolesław George II, in the winter of 1340/1341 is reported by Johann of Viktring,89 Francis of Prague,90 Beneš of Weitmühl91 and in particular detail by Johannes of Winterthur.92 The latter, as did briefly 88 “Hoc itaque regnum Polonie, quod triginta septem annis in persona piissimi Wenceslai regis fuerat regno Boemie unitum, ab ipso modo quibusdam adiectis condicionibus est divisum.” (Chron. Aulae Regiae, III, 11: 331); verbatim as well Chron. Francisci Pragensis, III, (III) VIII: 160. Ad 1341: “… et per ipsam [Margaretham] regnum Polonie unitum fuisset regno Boemie, quod prius per paternam avariciam extiterat separatum.” (Chron. Francisci Pragensis, III (VI) XIV: 176). 89 “Hoc anno rex Ruthenorum moritur, et rex Krakovie racione consortis, que filia regis Livonie fuerat, terram apprehendere festinavit, et abductis inde spoliis pluribus, quibusdam civitatibus depredatis ad propria est reversus. Rex Tartarorum hoc audiens regnum asserit esse suum, tamquam sibi et suis progenitoribus censuale, cum infinita multitudine Tartarorum ad metas Krakovie venit. Et depopulatis atque vastatis finibus illis compulit regem Krakovie metuentem auxilium Ungarorum, Teutonicorum, ut abigerentur, ne ulterius diffunderentur, nunciis et litteris implorare. Novissime tamen angariati per prohibicionem obsistencium fluviorum interpositorum ac armatorum occurrencium ad propria redierunt.” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 218). 90 “Anno Domini MCCCXLI Tartari Poloniam intraverunt et maximam partem terre devastaverunt, vindictam sumentes in christianis propter terram Rutenorum, quam pridem debellaverat dux Polonie propter ducem terre prefate, qui exstitit ei in linea consanguinitatis astrictus, quam intoxicatum nobiles dicte terre morti tradiderunt.” (Chron. Francisci Pragensis, III, (6) 14: 173). 91 “Anno Domini MCCCXLI Kazymirus, rex Polonie, habuit gwerram cum Ruthenis et Lytwanis infidelibus, qui venerant ad occupandum regnum et terras Polonie et Deo propicio recesserunt post tempus breve.” (Benessius, “Chronicon,” 490); see for context: Grzegorz Błaszczyk, Dzieje stosunków polsko-litewskich od czasów najdawniejszych do współczesności. T. 1: Trudne początki. [The history of Polish-Lithuanian relations from the earliest times to the present day. T. 1: Difficult beginnings.] Seria Historia 191 (Poznań, 1998), 62f. 92 “Anno dominice incarnacionis MCCCXLI. in quadragesima tanta multitudo Tartarorum et aliorum paganorum famis inedia conpulsa terram regis Gragowie et Ungarie ingressa est, quod quantum ad longitudinem in XX miliaribus et quantum ad latitudinem in V vel IX, ut fertur, terre spacium occupavit. […] Quod audiens rex Kragowie, cuius consors soror uxoris regis Ruthenorum iam intoxicati fuerat, illuc cum exercitu properavit et immensam peccuniam ab eo relictam rapiens reversus est. Propter quod imperator Tartarorum hec intelligens nimio furore agitatus paganos memoratos ad devastandam regionem regis Kragowie et alias finitimas regiones principum fidelium emisit. Qui inter cetera facta sua civitatem unam regalem pertinentem regi Kraggowie obsederunt. Quod videns rex sepedictus exercitum congregavit et in eos irruens in obsidione constitutos occidit ex ipsis

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

211

the annalist of Ratibor, also writes about the Bohemian-Polish conflict of 1345, including the besieging of Cracow.93 Detmar of Lübeck mentions Casimir’s campaign against Ruthenia in 1349.94 Mathias of Neuenburg,95 Heinrich Taube,96 and Johannes Kungstein in Mainz97 mention the Polish-Lithuanian conflicts of 1352. Andreas of Regensburg98 gives a contemporaneous report on the political settlement between Władysław II Jagiełło and Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1423 in Kežmarok. He also knew details about the plans for Witold’s coronation.99 As to the campaign of the Polish-Hungarian crusader army against the Ottomans and the defeat at Varna in 1444, both the Magdeburg annalist100 and Peter Weynknecht in Sagan address it, and the latter especially VI milia et civitatem viriliter defendit. Reges paganos plures et alios maiores natu, qui se peccunia redimere poterant, illesos abire permisit. In illo conflictu duces Polonie fortiter egerunt.” (Johannes von Winterthur, Chronik, 181, 184). 93 Johannes von Winterthur, Chronik, 257; Chronicon Ratiboriense, 115. 94 “In deme jare Cristi 1350 do toch de konink van Polen Casemer in Rutzenland na twelften, unde vorherede dar vele mit brande unde mit rove.” (Detmar-Chronik, cap. 680: 521). 95 “Item eodem anno LII. rex Lytovie [Kenstut] cum auxilio Tartarorum cum exercitu innumerabili per Russyam, quam quasi destruxit, transiens animo destruendi Cracovum, cum rehabuisset fratrem suum [Lubart] captivum dudum et cum omnes vicine terre ad eius resistenciam properarent, recessit in Prussiam, in perfidia perseverans.” (Mathias von Neuenburg, Chronica, cap. 148: 465) 96 “Anno Domini MCCCLII. de mense Marcii Tarthari et Rutheni pagani cum multis legionibus armatorum || contra regem Cracovie intrant Poloniam et unam civitatem vicerunt et terram et homines devastant. Tandem armatorum multi sunt occisi, et reversi sunt ad terram suam.” (Heinrich Taube, Chronica, 102f.). 97 “Anno D. 1352. Tartari pagani cum maximo exercitu invaserunt terminos christianorum et Rutenorum et regionem regis Crackoviensis, terras predictas et habitantes in eis devastantes.” (Chron. Mogunt., 4). 98 “Item hie ist ze merkchen, daz unser herr der kunig und der kunig von Polan und herczog Witolt und der dispot [309] und dez kaysers räte von Kriechen sind gewest pey einander zu dem Kassmarkcht und sind mit einander veraint.” (Andreas von Regensburg, “Diarium sexennale,” 301–342, here 308f.; idem. 571). 99 “Exinde venit Nürbergam, ubi Johannem episcopum Zagrabinesem et Ernestum ducem Bavarie misit in Litwaniam ad coronadum ducem Witoldum in regem. Qui impediti per Wladislaum regem Polonie, patruum eiusdem ducis Witoldi alias Alexandri nominati, qui noluit, ut ductaus ille Litwanie mutaretur in regnum, vacui sunt reversi. Interea prefatus dux Litwanie Alexander, qui in paganismo dictus fuerat Witoldus, est defunctus.” (id., “Fortsetzung der Chronica de principibus terrae Bavarorum,” in Sämtliche Werke, 565–587, here 571); plan for coronation also noted by Eberhard Windeck on the occassion of the death of Witold: “Witolt der groß fürste in der Littouwem den der konig Sigemiontt zü eime konige gemacht haben wolt, als ein Romscher konig danne macht hett, und wolt im rich cleinöter darzu geben haben.” (Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten, cap. 332: 314). 100 Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburg., 468; short reference in Ann. Riddagshusani, 83.

212

Kersken

acknowledges Władysław III.101 The meeting in Glogau between George of Podiebrad and Casimir IV in May of 1462 is only reported by contemporaneous observers, Peter Weynknecht and Caspar Borgeni.102 And finally, Caspar Borgeni and Jacob Unrest report on the Polish-Hungarian conflicts over Podiebrad’s successor in the years 1471/1474.103 The reports about confrontations between Poland and the Teutonic Order can be grouped together as a separate thematic sector. What is striking is the special attention that the Lübeck chroniclers Detmar und Hermann Korner give to the conflicts in the years 1330/1331,104 the Peace of Kalisch in 1343,105 the so-called Golubian war in the summer of 1422 (which ended with the Peace of Lake Melno in 1423)106 and the campaign of Polish and Hussite troops against the Teutonic Knights in Neumark in June 1433.107 ‘The great clash’, the battle of Tannenberg (Grunwald) of 1410, understandably attracted major attention among numerous chroniclers in the Empire. For a few chroniclers, this confrontation was the sole occasion on which they provide descriptive accounts of Poland.108 The event garnered the special attention of observers in the north-German area, as was the case in Lübeck in what is called the Rufus Chronicle and in Magdeburg in the Magdeburg Schöppenchronik. A detailed and contemporaneous narration is also offered by Jakob Twinger of Königshofen in Strasbourg109 and (relying on this) the Bern

101 “In qua pugna ipse eciam rex Polonie Wladislaus cecidit, adolescens spectabilis, fama ac opere pre ceteris Polonie regibus commendabilis. Thewtonicam nacionem valde dilexit ac promovit, in civitatibusque Polonie hanc viis omnibus, quibus valuit, plantare et exaltare sathagebat.” (Catalogus abbatum Sagan., 313). 102 Catalogus abbatum Sagan., 344; Borgeni, Annales, 15. 103 Borgeni, Annales, 17, 30 et seq.; Unrest, Österreichische Chronik, 21 et seq. 104 Detmar-Chronik, cap. 567f.: 462–468. 105 “In deme sulven jare [1343] in sunte Jacobes daghe do makede de meyster van Prutzen, broder Luder, enen guden vrede mit deme koninghe van Krakowe unde Polenen uppe deme slotte Moryn; he gaf weder deme koninghe, wat he hadde des sines, dat to deme rike horde, also dat land Coyave, Doborin unde dat slot, dat dar het Braburch.”, ibid., cap. 633: 497. 106 The context is explicated thoroughly by Korner, Chron. Novella, cap. 1379: 450f. 107 Id., cap. 1559: 518, 521. 108 That applies to Gobelin Person, Jakob Twinger von Königshofen, the so-called Königshofen-Justinger-Chronik from Bern, Conrad Justinger. 109 Jakob Twinger von Königshofen, Chronik. Die Chroniken der oberrheinischen Städte. Straßburg. Vol. 1–2. ed. Karl Hegel. Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte 8, 9 (Leipzig, 1870/1871), here vol. 2, 913–915.

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

213

city chronicles110 as well, then later Eberhard Windeck in Mainz as well as Peter Weynknecht in Sagan.111 Shorter reports are found in Saxony written by Hermann Korner,112 in the Gesta archiepisoporum Magdeburgensium,113 in the universal chronicle by Gobelin Person114 and Dietrich Engelhus,115 in an Augsburg chronicle,116 and in the Oldenburg chronicle by Johann Schiphower,117 while a few chroniclers from Saxony,118 Austria,119 Silesia,120 and Bohemia121 provide only brief annalistic notations. It is not how these texts represent the battle,122 but rather what knowledge they reveal of particulars from the Polish side. Only a portion of the chroniclers call the Polish king by name, those being some writers from the Saxon123 and the Austrian-Silesian regions.124 In the Lübeck chronicle the king is erroneously referred to as Boleslaus,125 otherwise he is called Wladislaus,126 whereas Ludolf of Sagan writes Vladislaus vel Wolislaus. The Magdeburg Schöppenchronik calls him by his Lithuanian name Jagiello,127 whereas Andreas of Regensburg uses both names.128 On the other 110 Die Berner Chronik des Conrad Justinger, ed. Gottlieb Studer, Bern, 1871. 111 Catalogus abbatum Sagan., 256. 112 Korner, Chron. Novella, cap. 814: 109. 113 Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburg., 456. 114 Gobelin Person, Cosmidromius, 186f. 115 Engelhus, Chronicon, 1139. 116 Chronik der Stadt Augsburg, 116. 117 Johann Schiphower, Chronicon Archicomitum Oldenburgensium, ed. Heinrich Meibom, SSrG 2, (Helmaestadii, 1688), 123–194, here 167. 118 Ann. Riddagshusani, 82; Annales Vetero-Cellenses, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 16 (Hannoverae, 1859), 41–47, here 46. 119 Ann. Mellicenses, 515. 120 Ann. civitatis Wratislav., 530; Annales Cisterciensium Henricov., 547; Chronicon Ratiboriense, 117. 121 Chronicon Palatinum 1348–1438. Geschichtsschreiber der hussitischen Bewegung in Böhmen 1, ed. Konstantin Höfler, Fontes rerum Austriacarum I, 2, 1 (Wien, 1856), 47–50, here 47; Chronicon capituli Metropolitani Pragensis, ibidem, 65–66, 66. 122 See Grabski, Polska w opiniach Europy, 253–276 Sven Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen. Vol. 1: Einführung und Quellenlage, Berliner historische Studien 8; Einzelstudien 1 (Berlin, 1982) 188, 230–233. 123 Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburgensium and Hermann Korner in Lübeck and the referring to that so-called Rufus-Chronik. 124 Thomas Ebendorfer, Sigismund Rosicz und Peter Weynknecht in Sagan. 125 “… Boleslaus, de konynk van Polen, …” (Rufus-Chronik, cap. 1379: 175). 126 Thomas Ebendorfer; Sigismund Rosicz; Catalogus abbatum Saganensium; in the Gesta archiepiscoprum Magdeburgensium he is named Waldislaus. 127 “… an sinem namen geheiten Jagel …” (Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, 329). 128 “Prefatus Wladislaus rex Polonorum, … in paganismo Gegelo vocatus” (Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica,” 254).

214

Kersken

hand, most all of the chronicles give the name of the Lithuanian grand duke, Vytautas, but of course in its Polish form, Witold.129 Veit Arnpeck in Landshut points out that Duke Henry XVI of Bavaria-Landshut twice undertook military campaigns into Prussia to support the Teutonic Knights against the king of Poland and the grand dukes of Lithuania.130 Events in the years after the battle at Tannenberg-Grunwald are only mentioned by a few chroniclers. These were: the Breslau arbitration decision of Sigismund in 1420;131 the so-called Gollubian war that followed upon the Polish-Lithuanian incursion into Prussia in the summer of 1422, (and ended with the Treaty of Lake Melno);132 the meeting in Kežmarok between Władysław Jagiełło and Sigismund;133 the plans for the royal coronation of Witold in 1430;134 and the campaign of the Polish and Hussite troops against the Teutonic Order in the Neumark in the summer of 1433.135 The confrontations between the Prussian estates and the Order (in the Thirteen-Years-War) are reported in the annals of Klosterneuburg, the Magdeburg annals, and by Sigismund Rosicz and later by Jakob Unrest und Peter Weynknecht in Sagan,136 with the battle near Konitz in 1454 between the Order’s army and the combined troops of the Prussian Confederation and Poland receiving significant attention.137 The handing over of Marienburg in 1456 to the Polish king is 129 Gobelin Person, Cosmidromius, 186, 187 (Vitoldus, Witoldus); Magdeburger Schöppen­ chronik, 329 (Wytolde); Korner, Chron. Novella, cap. 814: 109 (Witoldus); Detmar-Chronik, cap. 1138: 150 (Witolt); Twinger, Chronik, 914 (Witolde); Engelhus, Chronicon, 1139 (Witoldus, alias Alexander); Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica,” 152 (Bitoldus); Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten, cap. 38: 22 (Witolt); Ebendorfer, Cronica, 560 (Witoldus); Staindel, Chronicon, 528b (Witoldus); Rosicz, Gesta diversa, 43 (Wytoldus). 130 “Hic Hainricus duas expediciones in Prusiam in favorem fidei nostre et cruciferorum de domo Teutonicorum contra Wladislaum regem Polonie et fratrum eius Bitoldum ducem Littuovie et Schiderbalem fecit, qui duo aduc pagani erant, eo tempore, quo fratres teutonici bellum perdiderunt et magister ordinis nacione de Junging cum 600 cruciferis interfecti sunt.” (Arnpeck, Chron. Baioar., cap. 64: 360); respectively Arnpeck, Bayer. Chron., 613. 131 Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten, 29; Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, 349; Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburg., 458; to this Holtzmann, Robert: “Der Breslauer Reichstag von 1420,” in Schlesische Geschichtsblätter (1920) 1–9, here 6. 132 Korner, Chron. Novella, 450: cap. 1379; a reference to that as well: Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica,” 307; to this William Urban, Tannenberg and After (Chicago, 2003), 279–281. 133 Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica,” 308f. 134 Ibid., 571. 135 Korner, Chron. Novella, 518, 521; Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten, 346: cap. 379. 136 Ann. Claustroneoburg., 742; Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburg., 470; Rosicz, Gesta diversa, 65; Speier, Chronik, cap. 51: 393; Unrest, Österreichische Chronik, 12. 137 Gesta archiepiscoporum Magdeburg., 470; Ebendorfer, Cronica, 848; Catalogus abatum Sagan., 330; Rosicz, Gesta diversa, 67.

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

215

reported at length in the Speier chronicle and more briefly in several Augsburg chronicles.138 As to the Second Treaty of Thorn in 1466, it was written about contemporaneously in Silesia by Sigismund Rosicz in Breslau, and later by Weynknecht in Sagan and Hector Mülich in Augsburg.139 III The third thematic field in which Poland and Polish-German relations are addressed deals with political marriages. These chronical notations from a Polish point of view relate to the marital unions of members of the royal house on the one hand, and on the other to members of the Silesian Piasts marrying members of the imperial aristocracy. Most of the unions are mentioned only in individual chronicles. The marriages of Polish princes with imperial princes came about at the end of the 13th century with the last representatives of the Přemyslids. The marriage of Wenzel II’s sister, Kunigunde, to Boleslaw II of Masovia in 1291 (as a safeguard for Wenzel’s ambitions to the Polish crown) is reported by the Austrian chronicle.140 As to the unions of members of the Polish royal house, the first one to be mentioned is the marriage plan of the daughter of Przemysł II, Elisabeth Richza. Her betrothal to Otto of Brandenburg (who died before the marriage took place in 1299) is known to Peter of Zittau;141 her marriage to Wenzel II in 1303 is reported by him in his the Chronicon Aulae Regiae,142 and her brief marriage (1306/1307) to Rudolf von Habsburg, the son of Albrecht I, is reported in the Zbraslav Chronicle, the chronicle of the Erfurt monastery of St. Peter, as well as by Matthias of Neuenburg in Straßburg.143 The betrothal in 1335 of Elisabeth, the daughter of Casimir III, to Johann the Child, the son of Henry XIV of Bavaria and Margarethe of Luxembourg (thus the grandson of Johann of Bohemia), is reported by Francis of Prague in the wake of the Visegrád agreements between 138 Speier. Chronik, cap. 112: 418; Chronik der Stadt Augsburg, 327; Mülich, Chronik, 127; Anonyme Chronik, 505. 139 Rosicz, Gesta diversa, 82; Catalogus abbatum Sagan., 3330f.; Mülich, Chronik, 207. 140 “Die aine [Tochter Ottokars II.] ward geben ze Prag in sand Claren orden; doch wie si darnach darinne lebt, daz waiz man ze Prag wol. Darnach ward sy gegeben herczog Woleslaen von Polan.” (Österreichische Chronik, III, 293: 136. 141 Chron. Aulae Regiae, I, 69: 85. Chronica Marchionum Brandenburgensium. Nach einer Handschrift der Trierer Stadtbibliothek und den Excerpten des Pulkawa, ed. Georg Sello, Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte 1 (Leipzig/Berlin 1888), 111–180, here cap. XIV, 128, does not mention the marriage plan. 142 Chron. Aulae Regiae, I, 67: 81f.; I, 69: 85–87. 143 Chron. Aulae Regiae, I, 85: 110; “Cronica s. Petri Erfordensis moderna,” 329; Mathias von Neuenburg, Chronica, cap. 35: 337.

216

Kersken

Casimir and Johann.144 Also, the subsequently planned Luxembourg-Piast marital union (between the aforementioned Margarethe, now widowed, and Casimir III himself) never came about, since Margarethe died in July 1341 right before the actual ceremony, something about which Francis of Prague and Heinrich Taube of Selbach provide contemporaneous reports.145 The marriage of Louis IV’s son, Louis VI the Roman, to Kunigunde, the daughter of Casimir III in the summer of 1345 is contemporaneously reported by Johann of Winterthur146 and Heinrich of Herford, who then right away speaks about the Wittelsbach as the future king of Poland.147 In the 15th century there were many genealogically significant Jagiellonian-Habsburg unions.148 The importance of the marriage of Cimburgis of Masovia (a daughter of Alexandra of Lithuania, who in turn was a sister to Władysław Jagiełło) to Duke Ernst the Iron of Austria at the beginning of 1412 lay in that fact that through her son Friedrich III she became the female ancestor of the later Habsburgs. Only Jakob Unrest mentions the union.149 For the Jagiellonian dynasty, the marriage in 1454 of Casimir IV to Elisabeth of Austria (who is referred to as the “mother of all Jagiellons”) had a comparable importance. The marriage is reported by Sigismund Rosicz in Breslau, Veit Arnpeck in Landshut and Jakob Unrest in Carinthia.150 Veit Arnpeck, who however confuses Elisabeth with her sister Anna, takes this opportunity to name a few of the progeny of this union, in particular Hedwig, the spouse of George the Rich, Vladislav II, Johann Albert 144 Inter cetera amicie federa est promissum, quod Iohannes, puer quingennis, filius Henrici, ducis Bavarie, qui gener regis Boemie extitit, ducere debeat future tempore filiam regis Polonie pro uxore. (Chron. Francisci Pragensis, III, (3) 8: 159f.) 145 Chron. Francisci Pragensis, III, (3) 8, 175; Heinrich Taube, Chronica, 51. 146 Johannes von Winterthur, Chronica, 256. 147 “Tandem Marchie majorem partem germano suo Romulo, qui filiam regis Poloniorum uxorem habuit, donavit, rege Romanorum hoc ipsum approbante…. Lodewicus sane Marchiam totam germano suo Romulo, futuro sicut credebatur regi Polonie, contradidit hereditarie et perpetuo possidendam, Karolo rege Romanorum adnitente …” (Henricus de Hervordia, Liber, 272, 278). 148 Uwe Tresp, “Eine ‘famose und grenzenlos mächtige Generation’: Dynastie und Heiratspolitik der Jagiellonen im 15. und zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Jahrbuch für europäische Geschichte 8 (2007), 3–28. 149 “[Ernst] nam zu weyb frawn Czimburg, hertzog Allexander tochter aus der Massa von Polan.” (Unrest, Österreichische Chronik, wie Anm. 35, 4); to this: Eva Bruckner, Formen der Herrschaftsrepräsentation und Selbstdarstellung habsburgischer Fürsten im Spätmittelalter (PhD., Wien, 2009), 191 et seq. 150 “Nuptie regis Polonie. Anno ut supra die dominica ante septuagesimam Casimirus rex Polonie celebravit nuptias cum sorore Ladislai regis Bohemie Cracovie.” (Rosicz, Gesta diversa, 65); “Die ain tochter [Albrechts] ward zu weyb geben dem kunig von Polan, kunig Casmero, …” (Unrest, Österreichische Chronik, 1).

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

217

(who had just succeeded his father), Cardinal Friedrich Jagiełło, Sigismund, and Christof, whom in fact he is mixing up with Alexander the Jagiellon.151 The third Jagiellonian-Habsburg marital union, the Vienna double wedding of 1515, had an incomparably stronger historiographic echo.152 No less historiographical attention was given to the wedding of George the Rich from Bavaria with Hedwig, the daughter of Casimir IV in Landshut in November 1475, since it (because of the circumstances and perception at the time) was seen as an event that had more than regional historical importance. Attention was given it in Bavarian chronicles of the later 14th century, namely, by Veit Arnpeck and Ulrich Füetrer.153 A second group of historiographical passages about German-Polish marriage agreements deals with contacts among the nobility at regional levels. For the Empire this was primarily about Brandenburg and Bavaria; on the other side it regarded the marriage unions of the Silesian Piasts. The marriage of Konstanze, the daughter of Przemysł I of Greater Poland, to Konrad I of Brandenburg in 1260 is only reported in Brandenburg chronicles.154 The marital unions of the Silesian Piasts with members of noble families in the neighboring regions of 151 “Predicta domina regina Elizabet ex Alberto marito quatuor liberos procreavit, … Elizabet … et Annam, que Casimiro regi Polonie desponsata fuit, qui magnifica gaudens prole quinque filios et quinque filias ex ea procreavit aduc superstites, Hedwigem ducissam Bavarie, que es duce Georgio duas suscepit filias, …, item Wladislaum regem Hungarie et Bohemie, virum utique virtuosissimum, Albertum, qui defuncto genitore paterno potitus est regno, Fridericum cardinalem sedis apostolice legatum per Poloniam etc., archiepsicopum in Tartaria et episcopum Cracoviensem dignissimum, Sigismundum que et Christoferum duces Littovie ac Albe Russie, viros preclarissimos atque omni laude dignissimos,….” (Arnpeck, Chron. Austr., 798f.) 152 Krzysztof Baczkowski, Kongres wiedeński 1515 roku [Congress in Vienna 1515] (Oświęcim, 2015). 153 Sebastian Hiereth, “Zeitgenössische Quellen zur Landshuter Fürstenhochzeit 1475,” in Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Niederbayern 85 (1959) 1–64; Thomas Alexander Bauer, Feiern unter den Augen der Chronisten. Die Quellentexte zur Landshuter Fürstenhochzeit von 1475, Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften 26 (München, 2008); Walter Ziegler, “Die Geschichtsschreibung zur Landshuter Hochzeit 1475: Bericht und Überlegungen,” in Studien zur bayerischen Landesgeschichtsschreibung in Mittelalter und Neuzeit: Festgabe für Andreas Kraus zum 90. Geburtstag, ed. Alois Schmid, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte. Beiheft 41 (München, 2012), 193–243, here: 194 et seq.; Thomas Alexander Bauer, “Die Darstellung der Landshuter Fürstenhochzeit von 1475 und des Landshuter Erbfolgekriegs (1504–1505) in zeitgenössischen Quellentexten,” in Handbuch Chroniken des Mittelalters, eds. Gerhard Wolf and Norbert H. Ott (Berlin, 2016), 483–519, here: 485–514. 154 “Iohannes duxit uxorem Sophiam  … et genuit  … Conradum qui duxit uxorem Constanciam, filiam Primizlai ducis, cum magna parte terre iuxta Wartam.” (Chron. marchionum Brandenburg., cap. IX: 123).

218

Kersken

Bohemia, Austria, and Bavaria are reported almost exclusively just by the chroniclers who came from these local regions. So the Zbraslav Chronicle and Beneš Krabice of Weitmühl note the marriage of Viola Elisabeth of Cieszyn to the last Přemyslid, Wenzel III, in October 1305155 and the wedding of her half-sister Agnes to Heinrich of Schweidnitz.156 Silesian marital unions with Bavaria and Austria are mentioned primarily in texts from the monastery Fürstenfeld written by Ulrich Füetrer and by Veit Arnpeck, in Carinthia by Johann of Viktring, and by Matthias of Neuenburg (located in the Habsburg territory on the upper Rhine). The wedding in the summer of 1260 between Louis II of Bavaria and Anna of Glogau, who is referred to as filia ducis Polonie, ducissa de Polonia or aine von Polandt, is reported by the Fürstenfeld chronicler.157 The marriage of Otto III of Carinthia and Euphemia of Liegnitz, who likewise is referred to as filia ducis Polonie, is reported in 1297 by Johann of Viktring.158 The wedding of Stephen I of Bavaria to Judith of Schweidnitz in 1299 is noted by (among others)

155 “[…] contraxit matrimonium cum Viola, filia Mesche, ducis de Theschin; hec puella nomine mutato Elizabeth est vocata.” (Chron. Aulae Regiae, I, 84: 106); “Wenceslaus Vngarie, Boemie et Polonie rex, duxit in coniugem Fyolam, virginem speciosam, filiam ducis Tessnensis.” (Benessius, “Chronicon”, 464); as to that: Karel Maráz, Václav III. (1289–1306). Poslední Přemyslovec na českém trůně [Wenceslas III. (1289–1306). The last Přemyslid on the Czech throne] (České Budějovice, 2007), 50. 156 “Dominus Heinricus, filius domini Bolconis, ducis Silesie de Sweidenitz, duxit legitime sub matrimoniali federe Agnetem virginem, domini Wenceslai regis, … filiam, …” (Chron. Aulae Regiae, I, 129: 234); “Domicellam Agnetem, regine sororem, nolente regina duci Henrico Polono coniugio tradidit, …” (ibid. II, 1: 243). “Eodem anno regina Grecensis sic dicta filiam suam Agnetem, quam genuit ex rege Wenceslao seniore, absque consensu et consilio regine Elizabeth, sororis dicte puelle, tradidit et copulavit matrimoniali federe Henrico, filio Bolkonis, ducis Slesie.” (Benessius, “Chronicon,” 472). 157 “Post quam accepit in coniugem filiam ducis Polonie dominam Annam; ex qua habuit filiam Agnetem et Ludovicum, egregie indolis virum; sed inmatura, proh dolor! morte preventus est.” (Notae Fuerstenfeld., 74); “essetque ibi etiam dominus Ludwicus illustris dux Bawarie et filius suus iunior dux Ludwicus, quem genuit per dominam Annam serenissimam ducissam de Polonia, …” – “Chronica de gestis principum,” in Bayerische Chroniken des 14. Jahrhunderts Chronicae Bavaricae saec. XIV, ed. Georg Leidinger. (Hannover 1918), ad 1290: 42; “Nach dem nam er [Louis II the Strict of Bavaria] aine von Polandt, genant fraw Anna [von Glogau]; die gepar im ainen sun, genant Ludwig, und ain tochter, genant Agnes.” (Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, cap. 240: 169); “Eodem anno [1260] dominam Annam filiam Conradi ducis Polonie in uxorem duxit von der mass.” (Arnpeck, Chron. Baioar., cap. 21: 235); the homeland of Anna is given as “Mass”; one could suppose that bases on the name and not the landscape-name Masovia; in dem jar nam herzog Ludbig di ander hausfrauen Anna, herzog Conrad von Poland tochter. (Arnpeck, Bayer. Chron.: 517). 158 “Meinhardus comes … quatuor habuit filios …; tercium Ottonem, qui filiam ducis Polonie habuit, et ex ea quatuor filias progenuit.” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 256).

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

219

the chronicler in Niederaltaich, the abbot of Viktring, and Veit Arnpeck.159 The Zbraslav and the Carinthian chroniclers report the marriage of Bolesław III, later the duke of Brieg, and Johann of Viktring refers to him solely as quidam dux Polonorum; this union was arranged for him when he was a child by his guardian, Wenzel, II to the latter’s daughter.160 The union of Agnes, the daughter of Henry III of Glogau, to the Bavarian duke, Otto III (who had stayed at Henry’s court after his failed attempt to assert himself as King of Hungary), is described by Ottokar of Styria quite vividly and in detail: from the couple’s first meeting up through the wedding in Landshut.161 The marital union of Beatrix, the daughter of Bolko I of Schweidnitz, to the Bavarian Duke Louis in October 1308 (prior to his election as king) is reported by almost all the Bavarian chronicles, with the texts consistently identifying Beatrix as

159 “Stephanus dux Bavarie, …, duxit filiam Pulkonis de Polan in uxorem, celebratis ibidem nupciis.” – Hermanni Altah. Annales, ed. Georg Waitz., MGH SS, 24, (Hannoverae, 1879), 53–57, here: 55; “… dominus Stephanus dux inferioris Wabarie duxit sororem eius [Betaricis], videlicet dominam Gaeyttam.” (Chron. Ludovici quarti, 120); “Der konig Ludwig und herzog Steffan von Beiern, sin vetter, heten zwo swestere, herzogen Pulken tochtere von der Swidenitz von Polan. Di konigin hiez Beatrix, di herzogin hiez Jutta.” – Sächsische Weltchronik. Dritte Bairische Fortsetzung, ed. Ludwig Weiland, MGH Dt. Chron. 2 (Hannoverae, 1877), 340–348, here 344); “Stephanus dux Bawarie, …, duxit u[xorem] filiam Polkonis ducis Pol[onie].” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 375); “Hic dux Steffanus Geuttam filiam ducis Polonie de Swidnücz in uxorem duxit.” (Arnpeck, Chron. Baioar., 247); “Herzog Steffan nam zu der ee Geutta, ains herzogen tochter von Swidnücz.” (Arnpeck, Bayer. Chron., 524). 160 “Tercia [filia Wenceslai] est et filia domina Margaretha, qui duci Wratislaviensi Bouslao est matrimonialiter sociata.” (Chron Aulae Regiae I, 90: 123; “filiarum … altera duci cuidam Polonorum est sociata, …” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, II, 13); see Libor Jan, Václav II.: král na stríbrném trunu: 1283–1305 [Wenceslas II.: King on the Silver Thorn: 1283–1305] (Praha, 2015), 214. 161 Ottokar, Reimchronik, 88720–89049: 1155–1158; earlier and contemporaneously: “Domnus Otto rex Ungarie et dux Bawarie mirabiliter a captivitate Ungarica liberatus, per Prusciam et Rusciam ad terram suam rediens, in ipsa via filiam ducis Gloavie nomine Elyzabet desponsat, quam postea breviter ducit uxorem.” – Annales Osterhovenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, MGH SS 17 (Hannoverae, 1861) 537–558, here ad a. 1308: 555; Chronica de ducibus Bavariae, ed. Georg Leidinger, MGH SSrG. 19 (Hannover/Leipzig, 1918) 151–175, here 152. From Oberaltaich the writer labeled Heinrich of Glogau at this occasion as dux Polonie; from that as well Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica,” 547; The Salzburgerian Annales (Ann. s. Rudberti Salisburg., 819) mention the marriage in Straubing on Pentecost 1309 and the uxor sua de Glogawe; furthermore in chronicles of the late 15th century: Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, cap. 237: 167 named Agnes Machthild, there might be a confusion with the name of her mother, Mechthild von Braunschweig; Ebran von Wildenberg, Chronik, 141: Heinrich von Glogau is here ein hertzog in Bolon; Arnpeck, Chron. Baioar., 244: dux Polonie; Arnpeck, Bayer. Chron., 523: von ainem herzogen von Eyffn in Palant.

220

Kersken

a daughter of a Polish duke.162 The second “Polish” marriage for Anna, the oldest daughter of King Albrecht I, to Henry VI of Breslau is mentioned by Matthias of Neuenburg and Veit Arnpeck.163 The union of Agnes, the daughter of Leopold I of Austria, to Bolko II from Scheidnitz, in Poloniam, is mentioned by Johann of Viktring, Matthias of Neuenburg, and the Austrian chronicle.164 And finally, Veit Arnpeck reports the marital union of Margarethe, the daughter of Louis I of Brieg, with Albrecht of Bavaria in 1353.165 These mentionings of marital unions of Silesian dukes or the daughters of Silesian dukes deserve attention in that although in some cases reference is made to the respective residence towns (Breslau, Schweidnitz, Brieg), Silesia itself is never mentioned. Much more so the talk is of a dux Polonie or his daughter.

162 “[Ludowicus] accepta coniuge ducis Polonie filia Beatrice  …” (Notae Fuerstenfeld., 75); “ipse inclitus dux [Ludovicus] in uxorem duxit dominam Beatricem filiam illustris ducis Polonie Pulkonis, […]” (Chron. Ludovici quarti, 120); Sächsische Weltchronik. Dritte Bairische Fortsetzung (159); “Lůdewicus ducis Polonie duxit filiam.” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 350); “Ex Ludwico imperatore descenderunt ex Polana Lúdwicus et Stephanus filii et marchionissa in Missen.” (Mathias von Neuenburg, Chronica, cap. 24a: 297); “Nu wonte der kaiser [Louis IV.] zu Rom mit grosser und reichlicher zerung und kostung, und die kaiserin, was aine von Poland” (Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, cap. 240: 169); “Ludovicus dux Bavarie superioris … duas uxores habuit. Prima dicta fuit Beatrix filia ducis Polonie,….” (Arnpeck, Chron. Baioar., cap. 45: 282); “Ludbig, herzog in Oberbyren, hat gehabt zbo hausfrauen. di erst bas frau Beatrix, ains herzogen tochter von Polan,….” (Arnpeck, Bayer. Chron., 568); “Er lie 6 sün, Ludbig, Stefan, Albrecht, Wilhalm, Ludbig den Römer und Otto, bey zbain elichen hausfrauen, der küngin von Polan und ain gräfin von Holand …” (ibid.: 582); The confusion with the both wifes: Ludbig der Römer, … und sein jünger bruder Otto, der paider muter was von Polan, den was in der ersten tailung di march zu Brandenburg. (ibid., 584). 163 “Unam [Anna von Habsburg] dedit Goldemaro marchioni [in] Brandenburg. Quo mortuo sine liberis ipsam dedit duci [Henrico VI.] in Presla Polonie.” (Mathias von Neuenburg, Chronica, cap. 35: 58); ohne Erwähnung des Ehegatten: “Reliquit [rex Albertus] adhuc decem liberos, … videlicet … Annam ducissam Polonie, …” (Arnpeck, Chron. Austr., 778). 164 “Quarum […] alteram in Poloniam dux Albertus Lůpoldi filias honorifice maritavit.” (Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, II, 96; II, 128); “Item dux Lúpoldus strennuissimus, qui relictis duabus filiabus ex filia comitis Sabaudie, quarum una postea data est duci [de] Swidnicz Polonie.” (Mathias von Neuenburg, Chronica, cap. 24: 294); “Die ander tochter herczog Leupoltz ward fraw || Agnes genennet und ward aim herczogen von Polan gemëhelt zen Slezien, Herren zu Swidenicz.” (Österreichische Chronik, IV, 371: 179f. 165 “Albertus … duxit Margaretam filiam ducis Ludovici, ducis Polonie de Briga, in uxorem.” (Arnpeck, Chron. Baioar., cap. 52: 319); Arnpeck, Bayer. Chron., 585; “im [Albrecht] ward verheirat frau Margreth aus Polant, herzog Ludbig von Briga tochter.” (Arnpeck, Bayer. Chron., 585).

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

3

221

Perceptions and Valuations

As in the earlier Middle Ages, Poland appears in the chronicles of the Empire primarily with respect to the history of the relations between the two. This really needs no further explanation or justification. What is new in the post-Staufen period is that Poland seems to be more distant from the Empire. Differently than in the 11th century, there are no texts that take up the topic of a direct German-Polish relationship. The perceptions from the history of the mutual relations are now conveyed primarily by way of Silesian-Bohemian points of view and the history of the Teutonic Order. Only a few observations extend beyond this confine or show any awareness of the important events in Polish history in the years 1320,1370, or 1385. How marginal the level of knowledge was is something seen in the background report about the developments in Poland from decades before, which Andreas of Regensburg records. He got this information on the occasion of the Posen bishop’s, Andrzej Łaskarz’s, journey to the Council of Pavia when the bishop passed through Regensburg while travelling south. The bishop’s chaplain, also named Andreas, shared with the chronicler the genealogical connections in the Polish history of the previous 100 years, which the Bavarian Andreas added to his chronicle of the Hussite movement.166 Overall there are hardly any references to specific stereotypes about Poland in the late medieval German chronicles. Yet, a few observations and constellations of information do attract some attention. The title of the Polish kings is not presented solely as rex Poloniae. What was widely used by the chroniclers of the 14th and 15th centuries is the appellation rex Cracoviae.167 One finds it among north German and upper German historiographers, but less markedly so in Bavarian and Bohemian chronicles. On the occasion of the coronation of Władysław Łokietek, the Annales Lubicenses denotes him as rex Kracoviae;168 the continuations of the Lübeck Detmar chronicle and the Magdeburg Schöppenchronik refer in their reports of 1410 to the “King of Cracow or Poland”.169 Johannes of Winthertur and Matthias of Neuenburg in the 1340s, when writing about contemporaneous

166 Andreas von Regensburg, “Diarium sexennale,” 307f.; see id., Chronica Husitarum, in id., Sämtliche Werke, 343–459, here 409f.; see for that: Ożóg, “Bawarski Liwiusz,” 747, 750. 167 To this Grabski, Polska w opiniach Europy, 141. 168 Ann. Lubic., ad a. 1316: 425. 169 “De konnigh van Krackowe eder van Polenen” (Detmar-Chronik, cap. 1138: 151); “der koning van Krakowe, ok geheiten de koning van Polen” (Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, III: 329).

222

Kersken

events, use rex Cracovie exclusively170 (or sometimes Kragowie or Kragogie).171 In the 15th century one finds the appellation künig von Krackowe being used by Jakob Twinger of Königshofen;172 rex Crackoviensis und konig von Krakauw by Johannes Kungstein,173 rex Cracovie by Dietrich of Nieheim;174 Reinhold Slecht writes for 1410 about the rex Kracko seu Polonie,175 the Augsburg chronicle speaks of the kung von Kragkaw176 and in Eberhard Windeck one finds konig von Krakouwe alongside the appellation konig von Polant.177 Heinrich Taube of Selbach, after the middle of the 14th century, likewise speaks solely of rex Cracovie,178 and in passing one may mention that Wigand of Marburg at the court of the Grand Master in Prussia at the end of the 14th century likewise speaks solely of rex Cracovie.179 In Bohemia, Charles IV uses only the expression rex Cracovie180 in his autobiography; Beneš Krabice of Weitmühl alongside his usual rex Polonie only once uses the appellation rex Krakouie181 and Přibík Pulkava and the annals from Heinrichau use the form rex Cracovie in the report for 1326.182 It is Andreas of Regensburg who alone gives an explanation of this use of the title, linking it to the place of residence of the Polish king: Prefatus Wladislaus rex Polonorum, qui est rex Cracovie in volgo vocatur, eo quod Cracovie regni sui sedem teneat.183 Some chroniclers formed from this title a designation for the Kingdom of Poland. Peter of Zittau, in the Zbraslav chronicle, speaks of Cracouia ac Polonie regnum184 and Beneš Krabice of Cracouia et totum Polonie regnum.185 More explicitly, Jakob Twinger speaks of the künigrich zu Krackowe,186 a Viennese chronicler refers to chünichreich von Krakaw,187 170 Matthias von Neuenburg, Chronica, 135, 143, 159, 372, 376, 382. 171 Johannes von Winterthur, Chronica, 102, 181, 184, 203, 256, 257. 172 Twinger, Chronik, 913f. 173 Chron. Mogunt., 4, 88. 174 Dietrich von Nieheim, Historie, 129. 175 Slecht, Chronicon, 125. 176 Chronik der Stadt Augsburg, 116. 177 Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten, cap. 37: 21; cap. 38: 21f. 178 Heinrich Taube, Chronica, 51, 103. 179 Die Chronik Wigands von Marburg, ed. Theodor Hirsch. Scriptores rerum Prussicarum 2 (Leipzig, 1863), 429–662, here 436, 492, 525, 556, 648. 180 Charles IV, Vita, cap. 8: 80; cap. 14: 146; cap. 17: 159; cap. 18: 160; cap. 18: 162; cap. 18: 164; cap. 18: 168. 181 Benessius, “Chronicon”, ad a. 1338: 505. 182 Pulkava, Cronica Boemorum, cap. 100: 203; Ann. Cisterciensium Henricov., 546. 183 Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica,” 265.4, 12, 18. 184 Chron. Aulae Regiae, I, 71: 88. 185 Benessius, Chronicon, ad a. 1300: 463. 186 Twinger, Chronik, 913. 187 Österreichische Chronik, III, 297: 138.

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

223

and Johannes Kungstein to the regio regis Crackoviensis and to the regnum Krakaw.188 This forming of a title could also be applied to the feminine form. So, Hedwig, daughter of Louis of Anjou and consort of Władysław Jagiełło, is spoken of by the Salzburg annalist as regina Cracovie.189 Yet this terminology could also lead to some misleading notions: so, according to the Lübeck annalist, Władysław Łokietek was crowned rex Kracoviae et Poloniae190 und Jakob Twinger of Königshofen writes about Louis of Anjou as künig Ludewig van Ungern … hette drü künigreiche Ungern, Krackowe und Polonien …191 Karl Hegel, the publisher, related that to Lesser Poland and Greater Poland. In this context it is worthy of note that differently than the Bohemian chronicler mentioned above, Charles IV in his autobiography refers to Przemysł II explicitly as king of Lesser Poland (rex inferioris Polonie) and to Władysław Łokietek and his son Casimir as reges Cracovie seu inferioris Polonie.192 And finally, what is unique is Peter of Zittau’s rendering of the monarchical title for Przemysł II based on his Greater Poland center of power as duke, referring to him then as the king of Kalisch (rex Kalisiensis).193 While Polonia as a reference point is not used exclusively for the royal title, it is almost without exception the basis of the appellation for the Silesian dukes primarily when they are referring to Silesian marriages. So, Anna of Glogau

188 Chron. Mogunt., 4, 12. 189 Ann. s. Rudberti Salisburg., ad a. 1386: 840. 190 “Qui [Johannes XXII.] … ducem Kracoviae, cognomento Locket … regem fecit ordinari Kracoviae et Poloniae, …” (Ann. Lubic., 425). 191 Twinger, Chronik, 913. 192 “Wenceslaus secundus, rex Boemie, possederat inferiorem Poloniam predictam cum ducatibus Cracovie et Sandomerie racione unice filie Przemisl, regis inferioris Polonie, ducis Cracoviae et Sandomerie, quam acceperat in uxorem…. et dicebat se ius habere in regno Polonie inferioris, asserendo quod femina non posset hereditare in regno. Et sic guerra a longis temporibus duraverta inter reges Boemie et Kazomirum ac patrem suum quondam, Wladislaum nomine, reges Cracovie seu inferioris Polonie.” (Charles IV, Vita, cap. 8: 82). 193 Chron. Aulae Regiae, I, 67: 81f.; before though: “Quomodo dux Calisiensis in regno Poloniae coronatus fuerit et quomodo fuerit interemptus.” (ibid. I. 50: 60); similiar: Benessius, “Chronicon”, 461 et seq.; see: Grabski, Polska w opiniach obcych, 252–254; idem, Polska w opiniach Europy, 140. – It is remarkable that the Erfurt chronicler expresses himself similarly when he reports that Rudolf of Habsburg had married Elisabeth Richza, the daughter of the Duke of Kalisch: “Cui rex pater suus filiam ducis Kalisie uxorem dedit, que ante fuerat in matrimonio regis Wenezlai, quam sorore regis Romanorum mortua duxerat in uxorem.” – “Cronica s. Petri”, 329.

224

Kersken

is filia ducis Polonie,194 Bolko I of Schweidnitz dux Polko de Polonia,195 Judith of Schweidnitz filia ducis Polonie,196 Maria of Beuthen filia ducis Polonie,197 Beatrix of Schweidnitz ducis Polonie filia,198 Agnes of Glogau filia ducis Polonie,199 Boleslaw III of Brieg dux Polonorum,200 Henry VI of Breslau is dux Vratizlavie in Poloniam,201 whose consort Anna, the daughter of Albrecht I, is ducissa Polonie,202 Bolko II of Schweidnitz is dux [de] Swidnicz Polonie,203 Margarethe of Troppau filia ducis Polonie,204 Margarethe of Brieg filia ducis Polonie,205 and finally Paul of Jägerndorf, Bishop of Freising, receives the gloss: Hic fuit de Polonia.206 Now and then the late medieval chroniclers provide what is factually false information. Very seldom is the name of the Polish king ever given incorrectly. Nevertheless, there are examples of this in the Lübeck chronicles. So Detmar of Lübeck calls Przemysł II, Bolesław207 and Hermann Korner and the

194 Notae Fuerstenfeld., 75; “ducissa de Polonia – Cronica des gestis principum”, 42; “aine von Polandt, genant fraw Anna” – Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, cap. 240: 169; “Anna, herzog Conrad von Poland tochter” – Arnpeck, Bayerische Chronik, 517. 195 Cronica s. Petri Erfordensis moderna, 315; “Pulcho dux Polonie” – Heinrich Taube, Chronica, 3; “Pulko dux Polonie” – Ebendorfer, Cronica, 501. 196 Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 375; Arnpeck, Chronica Baioariorum, cap. 25: 247; idem, Bayerische Chronik, 524. 197 Dietrich von Nieheim, Historie, 129. 198 Notae Fuerstenfeld., 75; Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 66; Chronica Ludovici, 120; Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, cap. 251: 174; Ebendorfer, Cronica, 814; “eins konigs tochter von Bolon” – Ebran von Wildenberg, Chronik, 113; Arnpeck, Chronica Baioariorum, cap. 45: 282; “ains herzogen tochter von Polan” – idem, Bayerische Chronik, 568. 199 “[Otto III.] est a duce Polonie captivatus. Cuius filia in uxorem recepta …” (Andreas von Regensburg, “Chronica,” 547); “des hertzogen [von Polandt] tochter” (Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, cap. 237: 167); “[…] von einem hertzogen in Bolon; desselben tochter […]” (Ebran von Wildenberg, Chronik, 141); “[Otto III.] a duce Polonie secundo captus. Qui Agnetem filiam suam sibi desponsavit …” (Arnpeck, Chronica Baioariorum, cap. 24: 244); Arnpeck, Bayerische Chronik, 523. 200 Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, II, 1: “altera [Margarethe, filia Wenceslai II.] duci cuidam Polonorum est sociata.” 201 Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, 366; 202 Arnpeck, Chronicon Austriacum, 778. 203 Matthias von Neuenburg, Chronica, cap. 24: 294; Iohannis Victoriensis Liber, II, 96, 128 talks about a mariage in Poloniam. 204 Matthias von Neuenburg, Chronica, cap.: 135, 444. 205 Arnpeck, Chronica Baioariorum, cap. 52, 319. 206 Gesta episcoporum Frisingensium, 326. 207 “den hertoghen Bolizlawen van Kalys, de koning wart der Polene” – Detmar-Chronik, cap. 420, 390.

Poland in Late Medieval German Historiography

225

Rufus chronicle speak about Władysław Jagiełło as Bolesław,208 while Ebran of Wildenberg refers to him, Jogaila, as Meschbo.209 It is only among the north German and Upper Rhine chroniclers that one finds (infrequently) an incorrect identification of the grand duke as being the king of Lithuania, as when Skirgaila, the brother of Jogail, is misidentified by Johannes Kungstein210 and Detmar of Lübeck,211 and when the Schöppenchronik212 and Twinger of Königshofen213 speak about Vytautas in the report for 1410. Remarkably seldom is incorrect information given about Polish political marriages. Matthias of Neuenburg writes of Ottokar II’s consort, Kunigunda of Halych, as uxor sua, que Polonica extitit.214 Ulrich Füetrer writes about Margarethe of Holland or Hennegau, the second spouse of Emperor Louis IV and mother of Louis the Roman, as die kaiserin, was aine von Polandt and he calls her fraw(en) Margaretha(m) von Poland,215 whom he is certainly confusing with Louis’ first wife, Beatrix of Schweidnitz. Veit Arnpeck, when naming the children of Elisabeth of Luxembourg and Albrecht II von Habsburg, confuses the daughter Elisabeth, whom Casimir IV married, with the older Anna.216 Jakob Unrest refers to the second wife of Henry VI of Gorizia as Kathrein, aine auss der Massa von Polan, so from Masovia,217 but that should actually be Katharina of Gara, daughter of the Hungarian palatine Nikolaus of Gara. The Austrian Rhymed Chronicle presents the spouse of the last Árpád, Fenena, the daughter of Siemomysł of Kujawien, as the daughter of the duke of Glogau218 and includes in the report about Henry IV of Breslau an account 208 “Bolezlaus rex Polonie … intravit terram Prutzie” (Korner, Chron. novella, cap. 814: 109); “Boleslaus Polonorum rex  … Prutziam intravit” (ibd., cap. 1379: 450); afterwards: “in deme sulven jare toch Boleslaus, de konynk van Polen, … in Prutzen” (Rufus-Chronik, cap. 1379: 175). 209 See note 56 above. 210 Here Skirgaila wrongly described as successor in Poland: “Hoc regnum [Polonie] postea Schirial [Skirgaila] scismaticus rex Liteanorum est adeptus.” (Chron. Mogunt., 28). 211 “… weren de konnigh van Krackowe eder van Polenen unde de konnigh van Lettowen.” (Detmar-Chronik, cap. 1138: 150). 212 “… Wytolde sinen broder den koning van Littowen, …” (Magdeburger Schöppenchr., III: 329). 213 “… der künig von Krackowe … mit künig Witolde, …” (Twinger, Chronik, 914). 214 Matthias von Neuenburg, Chronica, 26, 322. 215 Füetrer, Bayerische Chronik, 174, 184. 216 “Predicta domina regina Elizabet ex Alberto marito quatuor liberos procreavit, … Georgium, … Elizabet, … et Annam, que Casimiro regi Polonie desponsata fuit, qui magnifica gaudens prole quinque filios et quinque filias ex ea procreavit …” (Arnpeck, Chronicon, 798). 217 Unrest, Österreichische Chronik, 11. 218 Ottokar, Reimchronik, cap. 533, V. 41089–41145: 1, 533f.; Österreichische Chronik, IV, 333: 158.

226

Kersken

of the murder of Bishop Stanisław of Krakau;219 however, in two manuscripts of the Rhymed Chronicle and in the Austrian Chronicle of the 95 Rulers, the name of the bishop is given as Wenzel of Cracow.220 Another piece of mistaken information concerns the murder of the provost of Bernau in front of St. Mary’s church in Berlin in August 1324, which Heinrich of Herford links to the Polish-Lithuanian incursion into Brandenburg in 1326.221 A historiographical mode of expression (used in various ways) employs a transposing of asserted current political positions into either the far distant past or into divine visions or promises. Ulrich Füetrer, around 1480, describes a dream of Charlemagne in which an angel of God promises him: Dir wirt auch undertan Sicilia, Schottenlandt, Arragun, Engellandt, Tennenmarck, Polandt, die fraissamen Rewssen, Hungern, Behaim, die starcken Sachsen, das künigkreich Marsilia; und mit gar grosser arbait und müe wirstu bezwingen Hyspania. With this, the Munich poet and historian is describing an idea of Empire which would have been unthinkable in the time of Charlemagne and in the 15th century had no relation to reality. Be that as it may, Poland in this instance has a place in the field of vision of a Bavarian chronicler. These observations come to an end around the year 1500; in the second half of the 15th century new practices and ways of perceiving things developed in historiography. The transition to humanistic forms of historiography that emerged with the reception of the geographical works of Ptolemy, the reception of Tacitus’ Germania, and the Antiquitates of Annius of Viterbo provided a basis in succeeding years for a new niveau in the perception and description of the eastern neighbors of the Empire. Translated by Philip Jacobs (English-Exactly) 219 Ottokar, Reimchronik, cap. 223, V. 21464–21510: 284. 220 Ottokar, Reimchronik, cap. 223: 284; Österreichische Chronik, III, 297: 138: “sand Wenczla, der bischoff ze Krakaw.” 221 “Prepositus de Bernov, hominem corpore grossum et pinguem, vinciunt, caput inter crura detorquentes, dorsum ejus gladiis aperiunt, profluvium sanguinis attendunt, de exitu belli per ipsum divinare cupientes.” (Henricus de Hervordia, Liber, cap. 94: 211; the report was copied later by Hermann Korner, to this Dietrich Kurze, “Der Propstmord zu Berlin 1324,” in Jahrbuch für Berlin-Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte 60 (1995) 92–136, here 97 [repr.: idem, Berlin-Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte im Mittelalter. Neun ausgewählte Beiträge, eds. Marie-Luise Heckmann, Susanne Jenks, and Stuart Jenks, Bibliothek der brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte 9 (Berlin, 2002) 207–250, here 212f.]

chapter 11

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in the Empire’s Hagiographic Sources Stephan Flemmig 1

Introduction

The pursuit of hagiographic texts may initially be motivated by theological or historiographic interests. The theological approach is based upon a normative dogmatic assertion that there is a higher measure of truth purported in the lives of saints. The saintly life, as a rule linearly-biographically structured, becomes like a vessel which holds the visible evidence of God whose divine spiritual power and action are present in our world. A historiographic study, on the other hand, asks questions more so about the facts in the life of a saint, and about the trustworthiness of historical witnesses. Such a pursuit is frequently anachronistic. Often the intended theological truth character of the hagiographic legend lies above the historical factuality. Any given hagiographic text could be disappointing when viewed with regard to the evidential value of the witnesses’ testimony. A third way to approach the texts would be to consider hagiographic texts as a form of mediation among quite different cultural practices, understood through images or stereotypes. This approach is often connected to literary studies, but is not limited to that discipline alone.1 Certainly, any such a separation according to theological, historiographic or any other kind of motivation is artificial. No modern theologian would totally disregard the historiographic or literary dimensions; similarly, no historians or literary theorists would ignore the insights from adjoining disciplines. Notwithstanding this, the practical differentiation into theological, historiographic, or any other variant motivation can be a starting point for the following search for stereotypes in hagiographic sources. 1 Die Legende der heiligen Hedwig. In der Übersetzung des Kilian von Meiningen [The Legend of St. Hedwig. In the translation by Kilian von Meiningen], ed. Sabine Seelbach (Münster, 2016), 253–54. Current literary dispositions, verbally to be understood as images, aimed to a particular social group in the Middle Ages, which could be used as a basis for stereotypes: Langner, Annäherung ans Fremde, here especially 15–25.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_012

228 2

Flemmig

The Tradition

First of all, the question is about the material itself. Looking at this issue, what one notices is that Poland, Silesia, Pomerania or Prussia find no prominent presence in the hagiography of the Empire. In researching the available lives of saints (Vitae) and accounts of their miracles or passions (Passiones and Miraculae), only a handful of texts reveal respective points of contact. Specifically, this refers to hagiographic texts about Adalbert of Prague, Otto of Bamberg, and Hedwig of Silesia. References along these lines appear as well in the description of the lives of the Five Brothers, and also the hermits and martyrs in Poland. As a result, we are dealing with various periods of time, which has consequences for the respective hagiographic texts and the statements (with stereotypes) about Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia contained in them. Turning first to Adalbert of Prague, he suffered his martyrdom in the year 997 among the Baltic old Prussians. The Five Brothers died shortly afterwards, in 1003. Otto of Bamberg was chaplain in Poland at the beginning of the 12th century; his two missionary journeys to Pomerania are dated to 1124/25 and 1128. Hedwig of Silesia died in 1243. There is little to add to the lives and influence of these persons and the same is true with regard to their cults and veneration in the Empire, in Poland or beyond. What alone would be of interest would be the hagiographic texts – and the representations of Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia found in them.2 1. There are two extant hagiographic works about Adalbert – in addition to fragmentary traces in other sources. One is concerned with the Vita Sancti Adalberti, and the other with the Passio Sancti Adalberti. The authorship of this first Vita is still under debate. Presumably the Vita was written soon after Adalbert’s death, say in 998 or 999. According to Heinrich George Pertz, publisher of the Scriptores Serie of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, the Vita 2 Compare to the persons mentioned here: Gerard Labuda, “Adalbert Vojtěch (hl.) [Adalbert Vojtěch (St)],” in Lexikon des Mittelalters I (München, 1980), 101–02; Alexander Gieysztor, “Johannes u. Gefährten [John and Companions],” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 2 (Freiburg/Basel/Rom/Wien, 1994), 210–11; Norbert Kersken, “Otto von Bamberg [Otto of Bamberg],” in Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, ed. Joachim Bahlcke, Stefan Rohdewald, and Thomas Wünsch (Berlin, 2013), 561–73; Jürgen Petersohn, “Otto, hl. [Otto, St.],” in Lexikon des Mittelalters VI [Medieval Lexicon VI] (München, 1993), 1580–81; Benigna Suchoniówna, “Jadwiga,” in Polski Słownik Biograficzny, Tom X (Wrocław/Warsaw/Krakow, 1962–1964), 297–99; Teresa Dunin-Wąsowicz, “Hedwig v. Schlesien [Hedwig of Silesia],” in Lexikon des Mittelalters IV (München, 1989), 1985–86.

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in Hagiographic Sources

229

appeared in Rome in the milieu of the Aventine monastery of St. Bonifatius and Alexius. Pertz considers a later abbot, Johannes Camparius, to have been the author. Subsequent research has generally acknowledged Pertz’s thesis, however it was based on some uncertain suppositions. In 2000, Johannes Fried called into question this old thesis. Based on a long-neglected and scarcely considered manuscript from Aachen, and additionally supported by other circumstantial evidence, Fried supposed that the oldest centre of any veneration of Adalbert lay in Lüttich-Aachen. Fried considers Bishop Notker of Lüttich, a close and trusted member of the court of Otto III, as the actual author of the Adalbert’s Vita.3 Yet, Notker’s authorship is in turn considered dubious, for example, by Peter Kubin, who assumes that a student of the Lüttich bishop was the author.4 Regardless of the uncertain provenance of the saint’s legend, one can hold that the Vita Sancti Alberti was popular in medieval times, especially in the Empire. Jadwiga Karwasińska has identified 37 manuscripts, 29 of them being complete texts.5 In fact, one may suppose that even additional manuscripts exist.6 The Vita Sancti Alberti was handed down in three independent editions, each one different in extent and contents. The most extensive is edition A.7 Presumably this edition was inspired by Emperor Otto III, so it is 3 Johannes Fried, “Gnesen-Aachen-Rom. Otto III. und der Kult des hl. Adalbert. Beobachtungen zum älteren Adalbertsleben [Gnesen-Aachen-Rome, Otto III and the cult of St. Adalbert. Observations to the older life of Adalbert],” in Polen und Deutschland vor 1000 Jahren. Die Berliner Tagung über den “Akt von Gnesen”, ed. Michael Borgolte (Berlin, 2002), 235–279; Jerzy Strzelczyk, “Einleitung [Introduction],” in Heiligenleben zur deutsch-slawischen Geschichte. Adalbert von Prag und Otto von Bamberg, ed. Lorenz Weinrich (Darmstadt, 2005), 3–19, here 12–13. 4 Petr Kubín, “Die Bemühungen Ottos III. um die Einsetzung eines Heiligenkultes für Bischof Adalbert von Prag (†997) [The endeavour of Otto III to establish a cult of Saintliness for Bishop Adalbert of Prague (+ 997)],” in Böhmen und seine Nachbarn in der Přemyslidenzeit, ed. Ivan Hlaváček and Alexander Patschovsky (Ostfildern, 2011), 317–40, here 323–24. 5 Jadwiga Karwasinska, “Wstęp,” in Sancti Alberti episcopi Pragensis et martyris Vita prior, ed. Jadwiga Karwasinska, V–XLVII, here VIII–XXII. 6 Michałowski emphasizes that the Adalbert cult reached its highest point towards the end of the millenium, after the death of Otto III except in Bohemia. However, it rapidly diminished in importance. Nevertheless, this does not apply to the popularity of the life of Adalbert. Roman Michałowski, “Die Heiligenkulte sowie die staatlichen und ethnischen Grenzen: Polen und die Nachbarländer vom 10. bis zum 14. Jahrhundert [Cult of Saints, its state and ethnic limits: Poland and its neighbour countries from 10th to 14th centuries],” in Grenzräume und Grenzüberschreitungen im Vergleich. Der Osten und der Westen des mittelalterlichen Lateineuropa, ed. Klaus Herber and Nikolaus Jaspert (Berlin, 2007), 339–360, here 341–344. 7  Sancti Adalberti episcopi Pragensis et Martyris Vita prior. A. Redactio Imperialis vel Ottoniana, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska (Warszawa, 1962), 1–47 (hereafter cited as Vita sancti Adalberti).

230

Flemmig

accordingly designated as the Ottonic or emperor’s edition. Just after Emperor Otto’s death, another edition, shorter particularly in its middle part, was written in the Aventin Monastery.8 Finally there is the last one, called edition C, which was composed in the Benedictine monastery of Monte Casino.9 The following discussion will be based upon edition A, because both editions B and C were circulated only in Italian areas (with the exception of a single Austrian Manuscript).10 The author of Passio Sancti Alberti was Brun (Bruno) of Querfurt. He likely also suffered a martyr’s death in the Polish-Rus‘-Prussian border area in early 1009. Contrary to the Vita, the Passio has been handed down in two editions, 1004 and 1008,11 with considerably fewer copies, that is, in only seven manuscripts and in one print version from an unknown manuscript.12 2. Shortly before his martyrdom, Brun of Querfurt also wrote another hagiographic report – the aforementioned story of the lives of the Five Brothers, settlers and martyrs in Poland. This Life of the Five Brothers, however, survives in only one manuscript – a clear statement of the limited circulation of narrations of lives and passions of the saints.13 There are three narrations existent about Bishop Otto of Bamberg, who even today is venerated as a missionary to Pomerania. The oldest Vita appeared presumably between 1140 and 1146 in the Prüfening monastery near Regensburg, which Bishop Otto himself had founded.14 However, Jürgen Petersohn has

8  Sancti Adalberti episcopi Pragensis et Martyris Vita prior. B. Redactio Aventinensis altera, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska (Warszawa, 1962), 49–67. 9  Sancti Adalberti episcopi Pragensis et Martyris Vita prior. C. Redactio Cassinensis, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska (Warszawa, 1962), 69–84. 10 Strzelczyk, “Einleitung,” 12–15; Kubín, “Die Bemühungen Ottos III.,” herep. 323–325. 11 S. Adalberti Pragensis Episcopi et Martyris Vita altera auctore Brunone Querfurtensi. Redactio longior, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska (Warszawa, 1969), 1–41 (hereafter cited as Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, to the redaction, which appeared 1004). Ibid., 43–69, the Redactio brevior (hereafter cited as Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, to the redaction, which appeared 1008). 12 Jadwiga Karwasińska, “Wstęp,” S. Adalberti Pragensis episcopi et martyrs Vita altera auctore Brunone Querfurtensi, ed. ead. (Warszawa, 1969), V–XXXI, here especially VII–XII; Strzelczyk, “Einleitung,” 15–16. 13 Vita quinque fratrum eremitarum [seu] Vita uel Passio Benedicti et Iohannis sociorumque suorum, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska (Warszawa, 1973), 27–84 (hereafter cited as Vita quinque fratrum). As delivered tradition of the Five Brothers Vita comp. Jadwiga Karwasińska, Wstęp, ibid., 9–21, here 13–15. 14 S. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis Vita Prieflingensis, ed. Jan Wikarjak and Kazimierz Liman (Warszawa, 1966), 1–74, (hereafter cited as Vita Prieflingensis). As delivered

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in Hagiographic Sources

231

doubts as to whether Monk Wolfberg could be its author.15 Two further Vitae about Otto of Bamberg appeared during the 50’s of the 12th century in the Michelsberg monastery near Bamberg. Ebo wrote one Vita between 1151 and 1159;16 and in 1159 Herbord produced his Dialogus, a Vita about Otto in dialogue form.17 Both Vitae, by Ebo and by Herbord, were consulted in the canonization process of Otto, which came to a successful conclusion at a Hoftag in 1189 in Würzburg.18 As had been done before with the Adalbert’s Vita, the Ottonian Vitae were recast into legends. However, as mentioned previously, the observations that follow here are limited to the hagiographic representation of Otto and not such liturgical handling of the material. 3. The basis for all legends about Hedwig is the Legenda maior (from around 1300) by an anonymous author of ecclesiastical origin.19 The legend unites a Vita of the saint with a detailed listing of the miracles performed by Hedwig. The Legenda is often passed down in what is called the Genealogia, an enumeration of Hedwig’s ancestors, as well as with the canonization documents and the sermon of Pope Clemens IV on the occasion of the canonization ceremony. Likewise, the Legenda minor, often handed down together with the Legenda maior, summarizes the previously mentioned detailed description of her life. In the late 14th and in the 15th centuries, the Legenda maior was translated a total of four times into German. There is proof that all those who ordered

15 16 17

18 19

tradition compare to Jan Wikarjak/Kazimierz Liman, “Wstęp,” in ibid., VII–XXII, here XIX–XXII. Jürgen Petersohn, “Einleitung [Introduction],” in Die Prüfeninger Vita Bischof Ottos I. von Bamberg nach der Fassung des Großen Österreichischen Legendars, ed. Jürgen Petersohn (Hannover, 1999), 1–35, here 17–20. Ebonis vita sancti Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis, ed. Jan Wikarjak and Kazimierz Liman (Warszawa, 1969),1–146 (hereafter cited as Ebonis vita Ottonis). As delivered tradition compare Jan Wikarjak/Kazimierz Liman, Wstęp, in ibid., V–XXIV, here XXII–XXIV. Herbordi dialogus de Vita S. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis, ed. Jan Wikarjak and Kazimierz Liman (Warszawa, 1974), 1–212 (hereafter cited as Herbordi dialogus). As delivered tradition comp. Jan Wikarjak/Kazimierz Liman, “Wstęp,” in ibid., V–XXVII, here XXIV–XXVII. Summary of Ottos three narrations Strzelczyk, “Einleitung,” 18–19 as well as Kersken, “Otto von Bamberg,” 562. Kersken, “Otto von Bamberg,” 562. Vita sanctae Hedwigis, ed. Aleksander Semkowicz, MPH 4 (Lwów, 1884; repr. Warsaw, 1961), 510–642 (hereafter cited as Vita sanctae Hedwigis]. Ibid., 642–51 the Genealogia.

232

Flemmig

the manuscripts as well as those who came to own them had a specific relationship to Hedwig. However, Hedwig’s Vita did not find its way into a set of legends. Outside of the geographic center of Hedwig veneration– in spite of her popularity as a saint– there was only a limited interest in Hedwig.20 3

Stereotypes in the Hagiographic Sources

Regarding the representations of Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia using stereotypes, there are four thematic fields to consider which are mentioned in the sources. Firstly, there are geographic and ethnic descriptions of these countries and their inhabitants. The second essential motive is the conversion of the heathen population. Thirdly, in the different sources certain prominent Polish, Pomeranian or Silesian persons are mentioned and are characterized. Finally – fourthly – the relation of Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia to the Empire and its problems are discussed. In what follows, I offer a very brief discussion of these respective thematic fields. This will reveal that often there is only fragmentary information presented, from which only roughly sketched images emerge. 3.1 Geographic and Ethnographic Descriptions: In the Vita of Adalbert of Prague, initially there is mention of a place in the Germanic area, which the natives call ‘Land of the Slavs’.21 In another place in the Vita, it recognizes as part of that ‘Land of the Slavs’ the Dukedom of Poland, an extensive realm.22 After that, Danzig is mentioned as a border town between Poland and the sea.23 The Vita contains no other geographic or ethnographic information about Poland. With regards to (old) Prussia, the results are even skimpier. There is only a statement saying that the god of the Prussians is to be found in their bellies, therefore “avarice is united with death”.24 20 Werner Williams-Krapp, “Hedwig von Schlesien [Hedwig of Silesia],” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon 3 (Berlin/New York, 1981), 566–69, here 566–68; Seelbach, Legende [Legends], 260–61. 21 Vita sancti Adalberti, chap. 1, 3–4, here 3: “Est locus in partibus Germanie, diues opibus, prepotens armis ferocibusque uiris, quem incole Sclauoniam cognomine dicunt”. 22 Vita sancti Adalberti, chap. 25, 37–38, here 38 mention of a Polish Duke as well as chap. 27, 40–41, here 40 to the extensive realm. 23 Vita sancti Adalberti, chap. 27, 40–41, here 40. 24 Ibid.: “[…] an Pruzzorum fines adiret, quorum deus uenter est et auaricia iuncta cum morte”.

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in Hagiographic Sources

233

Adalbert’s Passio delivers, as well, only marginal information. Poland is referred to as a dukedom;25 interestingly a part of the text mentions that a big city, Gnesne, (Gniezno/Gnesen) is to be found in the country.26 The Prussians are unfavorably presented; according to Brun of Querfurt, they are barbarians, dogs and wolves.27 Also, several times it stresses the strangeness of the Polish language, and that it takes an inordinate amount of effort to learn it.28 The three Vitae about Otto of Bamberg show an unevenness of detail in their geographic and ethnographic descriptions. Poland is referred to as a dukedom.29 Herbord refers to Breslau and Posen as episcopal sees and erroneously refers to Kalisch as such.30 Further on, Gnesen is mentioned as the capital city and the residence of the archbishop.31 According to the Vita by Prüfening, Polish is viewed as a barbarian language.32 Pomerania, the central backdrop of the Vitae, is separated from Poland by wild border areas and frightful forests.33 The Vitae show two possible ways of traveling from Bamberg to Pomerania from Franconian territory, either by way of Bohemia and Poland, or through Saxony and Lutizenland.34 In the Dialog by Herbord, Pomerania is characterized in a detailed manner. The name of this land “situated by the sea” comes from the Slavic language. 25 Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, chap. 21, 26–28, here 26–27 and Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, chap. 21, 22, 59–61 refer to Polish Duke Boleslaus. 26 Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, chap. 24, 29–31, here 29: “Est in parte regni ciuitas magna Gnezne, […]”. cf. Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, chap. 24, 62: “Est in parte regni ciuitas magna Gnezden, […]”. 27 Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, chap. 25, 31–32, and Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, chap. 25, 62–63. 28 Vita quinque fratrum, chap. 6, 41–42, here 41; chap. 10, 50–54, here 54; chap. 13, 58–68, here 59: “[…] Sclauonice lingue idioma superfluo sudore parauimus, […]”. 29 For example, Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 2, 29–31, here 30 (Speech of Polish Duke); Ebonis vita Ottonis, II, chap. 4, 62–64 (also speech of Polish Duke); Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 2, 62 (speech of dukedom Poland). 30 Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 3, 56–61, here 61; Herbordi dialogus, II, chap. 8, 75–77, here 76. 31 Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 3, 56–61, here 61; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 8–9, 75–79, here 76–77. 32 Vita Prieflingensis I, chap. 2, 6–7, here 7. 33 Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 1, 56–57, here 56: “[…] versus Poloniam iter tetendit, quam a confinio Pomeranorum horrenda quedam ac vasta admodum solitudo distingit”. Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 10, 79–80, here 79: “Taliter a duce Polonie dimissi per Uzdam castrum in extremis Polonie finibus transeuntes nemus horrendum et vastum, quod Pomeraniam Poloniamque dividit intravimus”. 34 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 1–2, 28–31; ibid., III, chap. 4, 59–61; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 3, 56–61, here 60–61.

234

Flemmig

The land itself is shaped like a triangle; its neighbors beyond the sea are Denmark and Rügen, and then Saxony and Lutizenland, Prussia, Russia and Poland as well. Pomerania itself is described as a productive land, rich in meat and fish, different cereals, nuts and seeds. Honey is in great supply, and there are numerous meadows and pasturelands. The Pomeranian beer is also very much praised. Unfortunately there is no wine, because the inhabitants do not cultivate the grape. However, in another place there is mention that bishop Otto did introduce viticulture. Those who live there, the Pomeranians, were (in Herbord’s opinion) experienced warriors; they lived from plundering and robbery and had a natural savagery. Yet in another place, they are described as a mild, noble, honest people.35 In different Ottonian Vitae there are several Pomeranian towns mentioned and to some extent depicted e. g. Stettin, as capital of Pomerania,36 Wollin,37 Pyritz,38 Kammin,39 Demmin,40 Kolberg and Belgard,41 Stargard42 and Wolgast.43 The name of the city Wollin, according the author, came from Julin, derived from Julius Caesar;44 the name of the city Belgard [Slavic: the white/beautiful Borough] from its beautiful location.45 In the Vitae by Ebo and Herbord, Kammin is presented as a dukedom.46 Also Rügen47 and Usedom48 35 Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 1, 59–62. Ibid., chap. 41, 141–44. 36 For example, the Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 7, 36–37, here 37; Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 1, 91–94, here 93–94; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 5, 68–71, here 69. 37 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 5, 34–35; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 7, 66–67; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 24, 104–10, here 104–05. 38 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 4, 32–34, here 32–33; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 5, 64–65, here 64; Herbordi dialogus II, chap 12, 82–83, here 83. 39 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 4, 32–34, here 33; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 5, 64–65, here 65; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 19, 96–97, here 96. 40 Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 5, 102–04, here 102. 41 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 20, 50–51, here 50 (Kolberg); Ebonis Vita Ottonis II, chap. 18, 86–89, here 87 Kolberg and Belgard; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 39, 137–39, Kolberg and Belgard. 42 Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 4, 62–64, here 63. 43 Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 4, 59–61, here 61; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 39, 137–39, here 139. 44 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 5, 34–35, here 34. 45 Ibid., chap. 20, 50–51, here 51. 46 Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 5, 64–65, here 65; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 19, 96–97, here 96. 47 Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 23, 133–36; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 1, 59–62, here 60. 48 Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 4, 59–61, here 61; Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 5, 102–04, here 104; Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 2, 150–52, here 151.

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in Hagiographic Sources

235

as well as the navigable river Oder49 are mentioned there. Concerning the church organization, there is a report on an effort by Otto to establish an episcopal see in Wollin.50 The legend of St. Hedwig does not contain any detailed geographic or ethnographic information. There is just general mention of the principality of Poland, and the dukedom of Silesia. Nevertheless, a good number of places in Silesia and Poland are mentioned, mostly to indicate the origin of persons to whom the holy miracle happened.51 3.2 The Conversion of the Formerly Heathen Population The fundamental object of hagiographic texts is, as mentioned in the introduction, not to mediate factual knowledge – such as geographic or ethnographic references. The subject of the missionary effects of a certain saint is in hagiographic texts much more significant. The Vitae and Passiones narrations of interest to us here, those of Adalbert of Prague and Otto of Bamberg, follow a typical pattern. The description of paganism and its heathen practices often leads to a very detailed report about the endeavors of the saints in their missionary efforts. The mission can be successful in one instance, but then other times it can fail. When the efforts of a mission fail, that might possibly end in the martyrdom of the missionary, but it could also end in apostasy, in the abandoning of the faith by only superficially converted peoples. In those cases when the mission is successful and endures, the faith of those converted is expressed in the worship of the saints – another typical motive in hagiographic texts. The Vita of St Adalbert is focused on the failure of the mission to the Prussians. They rejected Adalbert and his companions, Benedict and Gaudencius, beat them and chased the saint away before he eventually suffered martyrdom.52 The report of his sufferings follows this pattern.53 However, the passion not only gives information about the mission among the Baltic Prussians, but also among the Poles. Actually, it narrates the journey of

49 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 5, 7, 14, 34–35, here 34; 36–37, here 37; 45; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 7, 66–67, here 66; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 37, 132–135, here 134. 50 Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 15, 78–79. Indirect, without naming the place, Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 15, 73–74 and Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 42, 144–45, here 145. 51 Vita sanctae Hedwigis, 583–628. 52 Vita sancti Adalberti, chap. 27–30, 40–47. 53 Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, chap. 24–34, 29–41 and Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, chap. 24–34, 62–69.

236

Flemmig

Adalbert through Poland towards the Baltic area. According to the passion, Adalbert baptized many people in Gnesen.54 In the case of the Five Brothers, to whom Brun of Querfurt devotes a life and passion account, they actually died as victims of a robbery55 – so it is only conditionally that one would consider their deaths as martyrdom. In the Vitae of Otto of Bamberg, a large part of them concerns the paganism of the Pomeranians, their conversion and then their repeated desertion of their new faith. Certain elements – fully stereotypes – are prominent because of their frequent presentation. Different practices are mentioned as characteristic of paganism: The description of idol worship is very detailed. Among those mentioned, Triglaw, a statue with three heads, was worshipped in Stettin.56 The people used to dedicate a beautiful horse to him which then acted as oracle for this deity.57 In another place, a spring was worshipped58 and there is also mention of a walnut-tree as an idol.59 As further elements of heathen faith and pagan practices, the Vitae of Otto tell of the alleged killing of (new born) girls, the practice of polygamy, the consuming of human flesh and blood, and the burying of their dead in forests or fields.60 Prior to Otto, there seems to have been a Spaniard by the name of Bernhard, who tried to Christianize the Pomeranians, but did not succeed.61 This Bernhard, and afterwards the Polish duke Boleslaus III (Wrymouth), urged Otto to become a missionary.62 Otto of Bamberg prepared for his missionary work very thoroughly, selected companions, and looked for interpreters.63 The Vitae report that Otto was repeatedly met with hostility in Pomerania, and he was several times threatened and even encountered violence.64 The 54 Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, chap. 24, 29–31, here 30; Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, chap. 24, 62. 55 Cf. Vita quinque fratrum, chap. 13, 58–68, here especially. 61–68. 56 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 11, 42–43; Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 1, 91–94, here 93–94; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 32, 122–25, here 124. 57 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 11, 42–43; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 33, 125–26. 58 Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 32, 122–25, here 124–25. 59 Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 11, 70–71. 60 Ibid. II, chap. 21, 51–53; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 18, 92–95. Ibid., chap. 22, 99–100 explicit to Polygamy. 61 Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 1, 49–54. 62 Ibid., chap. 2, 54–56; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 6, 72–73. 63 Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 3, 56–61, Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 7, 73–74. 64 For examples of the enemies and threats of violence against Otto, cf: Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 7–8, 12, 64–67, 71–72; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 4, 62–64, here 63–64; Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 20, 129–30; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 24, 104–10.

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in Hagiographic Sources

237

missionary work of Otto focused its endeavors initially on individuals – who are actually named persons, a prince, two young men, a group of children, etc.65 Mainly it was the baptism of the prominent people or groups of people which influenced the baptism of other circles in the population.66 In the next phase, mass baptisms took place as well as general catechism instructions for the population and mass preaching to the Pomeranians.67 In this regard, the concept of mass baptisms is fully justified – there are were baptisms which seem utopic, such as 22,165 or also 25,156 persons baptized in a single ceremony.68 Later, Otto had the heathen temples demolished and erected Christian churches.69 The different Vitae repeat that after Otto’s first mission journey, the Pomeranians deserted the faith again. They once again started worshipping their idols (alongside Christ), and destroyed churches and built temples again.70 They also worked on Sundays and on holy days.71 But Otto succeeded in the re-Christianization of Pomerania. The miracles he was able to perform as well as the threat of possible force from outside of Pomerania helped him in his efforts.72 65 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 9, 39–41, as well as Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 9, 69–71 to the conversion of Domuslaw (Domazlaus) inhabitant of Stettin. In the Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 9, 68 the strict prohibition from the Bishop to Christian children not to play with heathen children: “Monet episcopus eos, qui baptizatos se esse meminerint, ab his, qui baptizati non fuerant, separari et nulla deinceps cum infidelibus communione misceri. Ad hanc vocem pueri Christiani pueros paganos abicere atque procul repellere episcopo inspiciente ceperunt ita, ut nullum eorum in medio sui stare permitterent”. Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 9, 163–66 to Conversion of Mizlauzs, Prince of Gützkow. 66 Explicit Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 5, 64–65, here 64: “Tercia die ad Piritscum castrum primum Pomeranie venit, ubi cives eius ad fidem exhortans quatuordecim diebus sedit, eis nimirum abnuentibus et servum Dei ad alia migrare loca facientibus seque novam hanc legem sine primatum et maiorum suorum consilio aggredi non posse testantibus”. Further on Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 11, 72: “Nos, inquint, pater honorande, antiquam patrum et maiorum nostrorum legem sine consensu primatum, quos in hac Stetinensi nostra metropoli reveremur, infringere non presumpsimus […]”. 67 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 43–46, 48–53; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap 5, 11, 15, 64–65, 72, 78–79; Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 15–21, 30, 36, 87–99, 118–21, 131–32. 68 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 20, 50–51, here 51 tells about 22.165 baptized; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 11, 72 tells about 22.156 baptized. 69 Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 22, 99–100, here 100; ibid., chap. 31, 121–22; Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 7–8, 161–63. 70 Explicitly the Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 5, 62; Ebonis vita Ottonis II, chap. 18, 86–89, here 89; Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 1, 91–94; Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 16, 176–177. 71 Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 29, 190–91. 72 Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 13, 115–18. Ibid., chap. 30, 118–21. Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 10, 166–69.

238

Flemmig

To a certain extent, the Poles are shown in the Vitae of Otto in a positive image over against the Pomeranians who are heathens or apostates from the faith. There is no doubting the Poles’ Christian faith. As a young man, the later missionary, Herman, stayed at the court of the Polish duke, Ladislaus I.73 According to Herbord, Otto learned the local Polish language while in Poland, and opened a boys school there, presumably because “there is a lack of educated people”.74 Ladislaus’ successor, Boleslaus III Wrymouth, is then characterized as a pious Christian.75 The Vita reports that it was this Duke Boleslaus who threatened Pomeranians with war if they would not accept the Christian missionaries.76 This last piece – the willingness of the Polish duke (if necessary, with force) to coerce his pagan neighbors to accept the mission – can be taken as segue to the Hedwig legend. The legend repeatedly mentions the events of the year 1241 – the death of Hedwig’s son, Henry the Pious, in a battle against the pagan Mongols.77 The Silesian prince is presented as the defender of Christianity. Otherwise there is no other mention of the problems with missionary efforts in the Hedwig legend. Clearly, Poland and Silesia appear as Christian countries. So, the numerous reports of her miracles in the Legenda maior that Silesia, Poland and also Pomerania had requested the help of Saint Hedwig, are quite consistent with this.78 3.3 Reference to Polish, Pomeranian and Silesian Personalities It has already been noted that in the Vitae of Adalbert, Otto and Hedwig, alongside the saints, other historic people are mentioned. Boleslaus the Brave is only briefly referred to in the Adalbert vita,79 whereas he is more explicitly appreciated in the Passio of St Adalbert.80 According to the Passio, the Polish duke, 73 Vita Prieflingensis, chap. 4, 8–10. 74 Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 32, 196–98, here 197: “Itaque in Poloniam peregre vadens, ubi sciebat litteratorum esse penuriam, scolam puerorum accepit et alios docendo seque ipsum instruendo brevi tempore ditatus atque honori habitus est. Linguam quoque terre illius apprehendit”. 75 Cf. below. 76 Ebonis vita Ottonis III, chap. 13, 115–18. Ibid., chap. 30, 118–21. Herbordi dialogus III, chap. 10, 166–69. 77 Vita sanctae Hedwigis, 515, 525–26, 559–70. 78 Cf. ibid., 583–628; here 598–99, to the Believers in Pomerania. 79 Vita sancti Adalberti, chap. 25, 37–38, here 38 and chap. 27, 40–41, here 40. 80 Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, chap. 21, 26–28, here 26 and chap. 25, 31–32, here 32. cf. Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, chap. 21, 59–60, here 59 and also chap. 25, 62–63, here 63.

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in Hagiographic Sources

239

“Father of the servants of God” loved Adalbert. Brun recounts that Adalbert, during his martyrdom, called Boleslaus “the most Christian of all Christian lords”.81 Besides Boleslaus I, the Passio of St Adalbert acknowledges also his father Mieszko I, and briefly mentions the battles of Margrave Hodo against the Polish Prince.82 In the Five Brothers Vita of Brun, Boleslaus I the Brave is mentioned again – his name Boleslaus is translated as “greater in glory”.83 In den Vitae of Otto of Bamberg, the positive description of Boleslaus III Wrymouth is amplified. The duke is described as diligent and wise, of noble descent. Completely devoted to the Church of Christ, he is a friend to the poor, comforter of those in need, amiable and humble.84 He has waged war successfully against Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, Rus’, nomadic Cumans, pagan Prussia, and Pomerania.85 He secured the dynasty, at least temporarily, through a peace treaty with the Great Principality of Kiev.86 Finally, the Polish duke invited Otto to do missionary work in Pomerania, and received him with honors everywhere, supported his missionary travels and, as already underscored, threatened Pomerania with war if they would further rebuff a renewal of the mission.87 Duke Wartislaw I. is another historical Pomeranian ruling figure mentioned in the Vitae of Otto. Wartislaw is positively characterized; he became Christian before his subjects did and supported Otto in his Christianization efforts.88 Naturally, the legend of Hedwig alludes to her husband, Duke Heinrich I the Bearded, as well as to her son, Duke Heinrich II, the Pious. The legend says that Heinrich I was a splendid duke, who because of the virtuous example of 81 Passio Adalberti. Redactio longior, chap. 25, 31–32, here 32; Passio Adalberti. Redactio brevior, chap. 25, 62–63, here 63. 82 Passio Adalberti. Redacti longior, chap. 10, 8–10, here 8–9. cf. Passio Adalberti. Redacti brevior, chap. 10, 49–50, here 50. 83 Vita quinque fratrum, chap. 6, 41–42, here 41. 84 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 2, 29–31, here especially 30: “Tandem confecto itinere a duce Polonie Bolezlao receptus honorifice est, cum quidem ille non secus in adventu tanti tunc hospitis letaretur, quam si ipsum recepisset hospicio Salvatorem”. cf. also Vita Prieflingensis III, chap. 1–2, 56–58. Further on Ebonis vita Ottonis II, here especially chap. 4, 62–64, here 62: “Erat enim dux ipse magne in Christi ecclesia reverentie, amator pauperum et piisimus inopum consolator, humilitatis et caritatis virtute omnibus amabilis, congregationibus fidelium et domiciliis sanctorum magis quam urbibus exstruendis operam dare solitus”. cf. Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 2, 62. 85 Herbordi dialogus II, chap. 3, 62–63. 86 Ibid., chap. 4, 64–68, here 64–65. 87 Cf. above. 88 Vita Prieflingensis II, chap. 3, 32.

240

Flemmig

his saintly wife was able to rule all the better his dukedom, Poland.89 Their son, Heinrich II, is characterized as a faithful, brave knight of Christ, who shed his blood for the sake of Christianity.90 Over against these figures, Duke Conrad of Mazovia and Duke Boleslaus II the Bald, are negatively portrayed in the Hedwig legend. Duke Conrad, a cruel minded man, took Hedwig’s husband as a prisoner. Then, the God-fearing woman went personally to Conrad, who, feeling the angelic presence of Hedwig, let her husband free.91 All the more negatively presented is the image of Boleslaus II, Duke of Liegnitz-Brieg, grandson of Hedwig. He caused much damage to his land; was responsible for extreme material losses and the death of several hundred persons.92 3.4 The Relation of Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia to the Empire With reference to the relation of Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia to the Empire, there are three points to be mentioned in a discussion of these hagiographic texts. It has already been indirectly indicated that the missions were initiated from within the Empire; and they were was essentially carried out by individual personalities: Adalbert of Prague’s mission to Prussia and Otto of Bamberg’s to Pomerania. Of the Five Brothers, who died before they could start their mission, two of them, as well as Benedict and John, came from Italy.93 In addition, there were marriage alliances between the Empire and Poland, which are also mentioned in the hagiography. The first one mentioned is the wedding of the Polish duke, Ladislaus I Herman, to Judith, daughter of Emperor Heinrich III. In the Vita of Otto of Bamberg from Prüfening, it is commented that this alliance was one encouraged by him.94 Also there is mention of the wedding of Hedwig of Andechs (St. Hedwig) to the Silesian duke, Henry I.95 Finally, the hagiographic texts also indicate active commercial relations. In Herbord’s Dialog there is mention of cloth-trade from the Empire to Pomerania.96 89 90 91 92 93

Vita sanctae Hedwigis, 514, 519. Ibid., 515, 525–26, 559–70. Ibid., 524. Ibid., 570–72. Michałowski, Heiligenkulte [Cult of the Saints], 354; Gieysztor, Johannes u. Gefährten [ John and companions], 210–11. 94 Vita Prieflingensis I, chap. 4, 8–10. 95 Vita sanctae Hedwigis, 514. 96 Herbordi dialogus I, chap. 36, 39–40, here 39.

Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia in Hagiographic Sources

4

241

Conclusion

Thomas Wünsch is able to name the cults of at least 29 saints in the time period from the 10th to the 15th centuries; they were at first only regionally significant, and later they expanded to Poland. Conversely, there are only a few examples of one or the other saint’s cult in Poland which extended further to the West. These few examples are Adalbert, Stanislaus of Krakow, and Hedwig of Silesia. Their spread to the West, especially into the Empire, was due essentially to the transfer of relics, iconographic materials, as well as being named in liturgical documents.97 The limited spread of the cults of Polish saints to the West (from the Polish viewpoint) was due to a relatively low regard of Poland in the hagiography of the Empire. One has to consider a time period extending through three centuries in order to identify the Vitae, Passiones and Miraculae, of a total of just three individuals from medieval times who were honored as saints. Only by considering such a lengthy period was it possible to gather sufficient evidence from Poland, Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia and the inhabitants of these lands. Even with the inclusion of the Five Brothers’ Vita, the results do not change that much. This evaluation of the hagiographic texts indicates that the texts discussed here did not intend to hand down any geographic, ethnographic or historical facts about Poland or its neighboring lands. The foreground intention of these texts is theological, aimed essentially at the idea of the missionary efforts. At the same time, these statements sketch out a certain image of Poland, Pomerania and Silesia. Prussia, however, is hardly present in the texts – except as the place of martyrdom for St. Adalbert. The original context of these texts indicates a very positive image of Poland; it was taken to be a Christian land with Christian inhabitants. The Polish nobility was interested in spreading and defending their Christian faith. The same result applies to Silesia as well. There were dynastic unions with the Empire. It was different with Pomerania. There were difficulties spreading the faith until it finally succeeded, as confirmed in the youngest hagiographic text, Hedwig’s Vita from 1300. Finally, on the threshold of the 14th century, pious 97

Thomas Wünsch, “Kultbeziehungen zwischen dem Reich und Polen im Mittelalter [Cult relations between the Empire and Poland in medieval age],” in Das Reich und Polen: Parallelen, Interaktionen und Formen der Akkulturation im Hohen und Späten Mittelalter, ed. Alexander Patschovsky and Thomas Wünsch (Stuttgart, 2003), 357–400, here 391, 398–99.

242

Flemmig

Pomeranians as well were willing to ask for assistance through the cult of St. Hedwig. Commercial contacts started quite early between Pomerania and the Empire. Thus, the stereotypes in Poland and its neighboring lands – both positive and negative– were also presented, but not at a deep enough level. An analysis of other kinds of sources would, in this regard, deliver definitely clearer results. Translated by Philip Jacobs (English-Exactly)

chapter 12

Perception of Poland in Peter Suchenwirt’s Heraldic Poems: Reflections on Dependence between Assessments and Genres Paul Martin Langner

I

This paper describes a sector of communication inside the community of European nobles in the late Middle Ages. It will give some information on the self-consciousness and reciprocal perceptions within this social group. This aspect becomes important through a comparison of texts that belong to different genres that were read within aristocratic circles. By comparing texts belonging to diverse genres, contradictory valuations of the status of Polish knights become perceptible. In addition to that, we also come to understand more about the geographical knowledge of that time. The focus in this paper will be on the heraldic poems (“rȇden”)1 of Peter Suchenwirt, who lived in Vienna at the end of the 14th century. In order to be able to discuss the intended train of thought, it is first necessary to give some thought to the different understandings of “genre” in historical studies and in German literary studies. These differences are significant for understanding the historiographical works and is the basis for this paper. The heraldic poems (“rȇden”) produced by Peter Suchenwirt were written for Austrian nobles. It is worth considering whether the Suchenwirt’s poems should be counted among historical texts. This classification makes it possible both to interpret the assessments of Polish nobles and knights in German-language poems of the High and Late Middle Ages and to add a feature to the paradigm of the description of these genres as well. However, it must be borne in mind that historical research understands the term “genre” differently than does German literary studies. The decisive difference is that in the perspective of medieval historiography, intentional categories become tangible in different genres. According to Schmale, the view of medieval authors is that different genres emerge on the basis of diverging 1 For this term see: Karina Kellermann, Abschied vom ‘historischen Volkslied’. Studien zur Funktion, Ästhetik und Publizität der Gattung historisch-politische Ereignisdichtung (Tübingen, 2000), 49–65.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004466555_013

244

Langner

strategies, which then structure and influence statements in different ways.2 However, it must also be assumed that a strict classification of genres did not exist in the Middle Ages; instead a variety of “hybrid forms” can be observed. In contrast to this notion, which focuses on the intentional orientation of genres, German literary studies ascribe specific textual features to each genre,3 and from these relations develops a “system” of genres. These characteristics separate the genres from each other. This relation can be shown through this figure: Genre1